Government is evil...

[Rudy Tamasz]

...isn't it?

[Mark]

But is it a necessary evil?

[BDunnell]

First, the term 'evil' is too strong (in most instances of its use, not just this). Second, if government is 'evil', so too are large tracts of the private sector.

[Rudy Tamasz]

It is necessary. Human societies of today are too sophisticated systems to survive without it. But it is still evil. Whenever you delegate it some responsibility, government always ends up taking more that people wanted to delegate. It assumes a self-sufficient and self-indulgent role and starts telling everybody what to do. My thesis is aimed against that popular misperception that government is the guard of human rights and liberties. In my view, it is the first usurper thereof.

Judging by the fact that over a hundred people viewed this thread without responding, there isn't too much disagreement over that. ;)

[BDunnell]

My thesis is aimed against that popular misperception that government is the guard of human rights and liberties. In my view, it is the first usurper thereof.

It certainly can be. But don't forget that it can also convey new human rights and liberties.

[Rudy Tamasz]

if government is 'evil', so too are large tracts of the private sector.

The "other guys are bad, too" argument is weak. We all know the private sector has its downsides, too, but this is not what we are discussing here.

[BDunnell]

The "other guys are bad, too" argument is weak. We all know the private sector has its downsides, too, but this is not what we are discussing here.

Why is it a weak argument? I would have thought that a discussion on the subject has to include at least mention of the fact that it is not only government that some could describe as 'evil', or are you against such a debate?

[Rudy Tamasz]

First, I didn't mean to discuss all evils of this world in one thread. Second, redirecting critique from the initial topic of debate to something else is a trick often used to dilute the debate and render it meaningless. Bringing something else into the debate only makes sense if it is something reasonably comparable to the major object of the debate. If we get to discuss government welfare vs private retirement packages, or government owned companies vs private companies, putting the government and the private sector together is perfectly justified. So far, though, I have only been thinking about government as a phenomenon of human society in general.

[BDunnell]

First, I didn't mean to discuss all evils of this world in one thread. Second, redirecting critique from the initial topic of debate to something else is a trick often used to dilute the debate and render it meaningless. Bringing something else into the debate only makes sense if it is something reasonably comparable to the major object of the debate. If we get to discuss government welfare vs private retirement packages, or government owned companies vs private companies, putting the government and the private sector together is perfectly justified. So far, though, I have only been thinking about government as a phenomenon of human society in general.

Points well made, though I would still argue that the private sector is just as much a phenomenon of human society in general.

[donKey jote]

Judging by the fact that over a hundred people viewed this thread without responding, there isn't too much disagreement over that. ;)
I wonder how many simply viewed it and thought "oh look... another Rudy rant", and didn't bother responding ;)

[Malbec]

First, I didn't mean to discuss all evils of this world in one thread. Second, redirecting critique from the initial topic of debate to something else is a trick often used to dilute the debate and render it meaningless. Bringing something else into the debate only makes sense if it is something reasonably comparable to the major object of the debate. If we get to discuss government welfare vs private retirement packages, or government owned companies vs private companies, putting the government and the private sector together is perfectly justified. So far, though, I have only been thinking about government as a phenomenon of human society in general.

Sorry Rudy but you're artificially choosing what is acceptable to discuss and what is not.

If you are going to discuss the merits of government then it is only natural, even essential to discuss alternative systems. This could be the comparison of government with the lack of government (ie anarchy) or public vs private sector.

Ultimately though the government is not inherently evil or good. It is merely a tool for those who hold power and its effects are merely a reflection of the intention of those people. A car is not inherently good or evil either in much the same way.

[Eki]

Is government a chicken?

[donKey jote]

All governments are chickens, but some are more chicken than others...

[Gregor-y]

Is government a chicken?
And are corporations the egg?

[BDunnell]

Sorry Rudy but you're artificially choosing what is acceptable to discuss and what is not.

And artifically choosing to describe government as 'evil' and saying only of the private sector that it 'has its downsides'.

[Rollo]

First, the term 'evil' is too strong (in most instances of its use, not just this). Second, if government is 'evil', so too are large tracts of the private sector.

"government" includes the administration and policy direction of power and wealth; the private sector very much engages in this.

If Rudy chooses to describe "government" as "evil" then, is this a reflection on how he sees human nature generally?

[Eki]

Governments aren't evil, people are. Sometimes people who form a government are especially evil.

[BDunnell]

Governments aren't evil, people are. Sometimes people who form a government are especially evil.

I'm not even in favour of the use of the word 'evil' to describe a person in most instances. The idea of an individual being either 'good' or 'evil' is very simplistic.

[Eki]

I'm not even in favour of the use of the word 'evil' to describe a person in most instances. The idea of an individual being either 'good' or 'evil' is very simplistic.
Well, I was being simplistic, like those who say "guns don't kill people, people do".

[Bolton Midnight]

So was Ian Brady or Fred West evil or just misunderstood?

Right wing government in democracies are less controlling, in the UK we are in the process of being freed after 13 years of left wing interfering / meddling. Justifying their own existence. Thank god.

[BDunnell]

So was Ian Brady or Fred West evil or just misunderstood?

I wasn't aware that was the only choice available.

[Bolton Midnight]

Victims of society were they, just needed breast feeding when bairns?

[BDunnell]

People are generally more complex than simply being 'bad' or 'good'.

[Bolton Midnight]

Am sure their victims agree................

maybe they were thinking to themselves 'now I wonder why he is shoving that massive spike up my VJ whilst his missus bashes my head with a hammer they're not all bad as Fred kindly changed that lightbulb for me lastnight'

[Rudy Tamasz]

Sorry Rudy but you're artificially choosing what is acceptable to discuss and what is not.

If you are going to discuss the merits of government then it is only natural, even essential to discuss alternative systems. This could be the comparison of government with the lack of government (ie anarchy) or public vs private sector.


If we are to discuss an alternative in general to government in general, that would not be the private sector. That would be the society itself. A self-regulating and self-governing society, that is. In such a society the central governmentonly takes care of a few selected things (diplomacy, defense, some communications, taxation to support the abovemtnioned) and that's it.

[Rudy Tamasz]

"government" includes the administration and policy direction of power and wealth; the private sector very much engages in this.

If Rudy chooses to describe "government" as "evil" then, is this a reflection on how he sees human nature generally?

There is a lot of evil in human nature in the shape of lust, violence greed and other dark instincts. Correct me if I'm wrong. Those who want to be in power and govern others tend to live by those instincts a lot more than an average Joe. I.e. giving them more power is cultivating evil. Again, correct me if I'm wrong.

[BDunnell]

There is a lot of evil in human nature in the shape of lust, violence greed and other dark instincts. Correct me if I'm wrong. Those who want to be in power and govern others tend to live by those instincts a lot more than an average Joe. I.e. giving them more power is cultivating evil. Again, correct me if I'm wrong.

Why your obsession with this word 'evil'?

[Rudy Tamasz]

Why your obsession with this word 'evil'?

There's a jewellry store close to my office that is called ИВЕЛ. The name is completely meaningless in Russian, but it sounds very close to "evil" in English. I pass it by every now and then and here you go.

[SGWilko]

I wasn't aware that was the only choice available.

You come across as naive with comments like that, they are just two examples. Why don't you just answer the question - a simple yes or no would have done.

[Malbec]

If we are to discuss an alternative in general to government in general, that would not be the private sector. That would be the society itself. A self-regulating and self-governing society, that is. In such a society the central governmentonly takes care of a few selected things (diplomacy, defense, some communications, taxation to support the abovemtnioned) and that's it.

What you describe is still a government albeit cut down, not society governing itself. But at least you've made your libertarian agenda clear.

BTW earlier you complained that government only acts to cut down on human rights. Can you expand further on this? What kind of human rights are you talking about? The kind that was enshrined by the rebel American government in 1776? Or maybe you're thinking about the rights declared by the French government in 1789. Perhaps you're thinking about the more informal unwritten guaranteed rights given by the British government in the mid 17th century.

How does government only cutting down on human rights go with the massive expansion of liberties in East Europe after the fall in the Berlin wall enacted by those governments? How about the fall of Apartheid, also with new rights given to blacks by the South African government?

Perhaps you could then consider that your arguments are just a tiny bit simplistic.

[BDunnell]

You come across as naive with comments like that, they are just two examples. Why don't you just answer the question - a simple yes or no would have done.

No it wouldn't, unless one is being overly simplistic. This was not a question to which a 'yes/no' answer would ever suffice, unless one sees the world, and everyone in it, in black and white.

[SGWilko]

No it wouldn't, unless one is being overly simplistic. This was not a question to which a 'yes/no' answer would ever suffice, unless one sees the world, and everyone in it, in black and white.

Well, a yes or no would suffice - if you so felt the need you could then, in a new sentence, elaborate to qualify the responce.

[BDunnell]

Well, a yes or no would suffice - if you so felt the need you could then, in a new sentence, elaborate to qualify the responce.

No it wouldn't suffice! Neither option put forward was accurate. Still, if you want to view individuals in the simplistic terms of being either good or bad, so be it.

[Rollo]

There is a lot of evil in human nature in the shape of lust, violence greed and other dark instincts. Correct me if I'm wrong. Those who want to be in power and govern others tend to live by those instincts a lot more than an average Joe. I.e. giving them more power is cultivating evil. Again, correct me if I'm wrong.

I don't wish to correct anything that is wrong because I agree with you. However, I don't see private enterprise as somehow being a curb to evil either.

Without some degree of power wielded by regulators, private enterprise will do precisely as it sees fit. If that includes ruining the environment in the process, or perhaps devaluing human labour then it will do. Things like the provision of fire services, the abolition of slavery and even regulations to do with the treatment of waste water all came about because Government had the power to act.


If we are to discuss an alternative in general to government in general, that would not be the private sector. That would be the society itself. A self-regulating and self-governing society, that is.

A self-regulating and self-governing society? Can such a thing even exist?

"everyone from the lowliest peasant, to kings and princes are motivated by self-interest"
- Adam Smith, Wealth of Nations, Book 1. (1776)

The thug who robs a 7-Eleven, a lazy plumber who takes too long to do a job, the bankers on Wall St, even the priesthood who do "naughty things", are all "motivated by self-interest". Given that you yourself concede that "There is a lot of evil in human nature in the shape of lust, violence greed and other dark instincts", what possible basis can there be for a
"self-regulating and self-governing society"?
It would be a one-way road to Chaos and it probably couldn't afford the diesel to get there.

[Rudy Tamasz]

What you describe is still a government albeit cut down, not society governing itself. But at least you've made your libertarian agenda clear.

BTW earlier you complained that government only acts to cut down on human rights. Can you expand further on this? What kind of human rights are you talking about? The kind that was enshrined by the rebel American government in 1776? Or maybe you're thinking about the rights declared by the French government in 1789. Perhaps you're thinking about the more informal unwritten guaranteed rights given by the British government in the mid 17th century.

How does government only cutting down on human rights go with the massive expansion of liberties in East Europe after the fall in the Berlin wall enacted by those governments? How about the fall of Apartheid, also with new rights given to blacks by the South African government?

Perhaps you could then consider that your arguments are just a tiny bit simplistic.

For specific examples you might want to consider Magna Carta that the people of England made the King to sign at a gunpoint (except there were no guns back then). The American Constitution starts with "We, the People of the United States..." and its preamble includes no mention of a government. I'm less excited about the French and what they did as they have that thing about "etat" being responsible for all things under the sun, good or bad. In any case it's the people that's the source of rights and liberties, not the government.

I also had a sarcastic grin on my face as I was reading your point on expansion of liberties in Eastern Europe enacted by the governments. Being an East Europena and having taken part in the events back in 1989-1991 I can testify that the communist governments that we wanted to take our liberties back from had little sympathy for our cause. In fact, they opposed it as much as they could. Bureaucrats that replaced them are not much better.

[BDunnell]

I also had a sarcastic grin on my face as I was reading your point on expansion of liberties in Eastern Europe enacted by the governments. Being an East Europena and having taken part in the events back in 1989-1991 I can testify that the communist governments that we wanted to take our liberties back from had little sympathy for our cause. In fact, they opposed it as much as they could. Bureaucrats that replaced them are not much better.

Have you, perhaps, slightly misunderstood the point — namely that those communist governments were replaced by administrations that gave at least some liberties and freedoms, previously denied, back?

[Malbec]

For specific examples you might want to consider Magna Carta that the people of England made the King to sign at a gunpoint (except there were no guns back then). The American Constitution starts with "We, the People of the United States..." and its preamble includes no mention of a government. I'm less excited about the French and what they did as they have that thing about "etat" being responsible for all things under the sun, good or bad. In any case it's the people that's the source of rights and liberties, not the government.

The American constitution that governs what exactly? Doesn't it set out the organisation of government and the extent of its power especially in relation to its subject people? How does that not relate to government?


I also had a sarcastic grin on my face as I was reading your point on expansion of liberties in Eastern Europe enacted by the governments. Being an East Europena and having taken part in the events back in 1989-1991 I can testify that the communist governments that we wanted to take our liberties back from had little sympathy for our cause. In fact, they opposed it as much as they could. Bureaucrats that replaced them are not much better.

Regardless no East European government went through a phase where there was a lack of government. There was transition from Communist rule to 'democracies' of varying types where new governments increased personal freedom. Is that not correct?

I could also add (beyond the abolition of racial segregation laws in the US and South Africa) the introduction of universal suffrage and introduction of legislation to prevent society discriminating against particular sexes, races and religions all of which are further examples of governments increasing human rights around the world.

The points I raised indicate that governments not only take away but bestow human rights. Your original statement that governments only take them away is still therefore absolutely wrong.

[Rudy Tamasz]

All they had to do is to reluctantly acknowledge the fact of citizens' taking back their liberties. They have succeeded in usurping many of those yet again since that time. King John comes to mind again.

[Bolton Midnight]

No it wouldn't suffice! Neither option put forward was accurate. Still, if you want to view individuals in the simplistic terms of being either good or bad, so be it.

Of course you could, if Dr Shipman worked for free every other Saturday it doesn't mean he is a good person because he killed all those folk, so that over rides and good deed he may have done so he was bad. Only a dithering idiot wouldn't be able to answer that re Brady/West.

[Bolton Midnight]

All they had to do is to reluctantly acknowledge the fact of citizens' taking back their liberties.

Bit like the Tories now vs the bad old days of Liebour.

[BDunnell]

Of course you could, if Dr Shipman worked for free every other Saturday it doesn't mean he is a good person because he killed all those folk, so that over rides and good deed he may have done so he was bad. Only a dithering idiot wouldn't be able to answer that re Brady/West.

Simplistic, like I said.

[Bolton Midnight]

Simplistic, like I said.

http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-vbNH_58qXIw/TkycUbhiOUI/AAAAAAAAPrQ/48oOfj0J23A/s1600/troll+spray.jpg

simplistic to you maybe but true nonetheless

[Malbec]

All they had to do is to reluctantly acknowledge the fact of citizens' taking back their liberties. They have succeeded in usurping many of those yet again since that time. King John comes to mind again.

'They' by which I presume you mean governments did indeed bow to public pressure to increase rights which goes counter to your initial claim.

While I am against the reduction of human rights that happened in mnay countries as a response to 9/11 etc etc it would be very unfair to ignore that there was considerable pressure both from the public and media to do something concrete to reduce the chances of further attacks. Therefore whether increasing or decreasing human rights, in the examples you have chosen governments have to some degree tried to reflect public opinion.

[BDunnell]

simplistic to you maybe but true nonetheless

Er... no. But don't let that trouble you.

[BDunnell]

'They' by which I presume you mean governments did indeed bow to public pressure to increase rights which goes counter to your initial claim.

While I am against the reduction of human rights that happened in mnay countries as a response to 9/11 etc etc it would be very unfair to ignore that there was considerable pressure both from the public and media to do something concrete to reduce the chances of further attacks. Therefore whether increasing or decreasing human rights, in the examples you have chosen governments have to some degree tried to reflect public opinion.

And not, I hasten to add, public opinion from the left of the political spectrum.

[Bolton Midnight]

Er... no. But don't let that trouble you.

So you think Shipman, Brady & West were not bad people? Only a bed wetting Liberal could think they were anything other than bad people.

[BDunnell]

So you think Shipman, Brady & West were not bad people? Only a bed wetting Liberal could think they were anything other than bad people.

I think they were extremely ill people who committed appalling crimes.

[Bolton Midnight]

Prove it!

They were not ill they were just bad.

[Rudy Tamasz]

'They' by which I presume you mean governments did indeed bow to public pressure to increase rights which goes counter to your initial claim.

Wrong. Rights and liberties are something the humankind was born with before any government existed. People choose voluntarily to restrain their liberties by imposing law on themselves and electing the government to guard the law with the purpose of achieving order, safety and security. Government is, therefore, is not a source of liberties and rights by any means. It is sort of a banker of human liberties and rights, who vows to keep those safe and give that deposit back to people when they request it. Alas, like many banks governments do not stick to their end of the deal and choose to screw clients.

[Malbec]

Wrong. Rights and liberties are something the humankind was born with before any government existed. People choose voluntarily to restrain their liberties by imposing law on themselves and electing the government to guard the law with the purpose of achieving order, safety and security. Government is, therefore, is not a source of liberties and rights by any means. It is sort of a banker of human liberties and rights, who vows to keep those safe and give that deposit back to people when they request it. Alas, like many banks governments do not stick to their end of the deal and choose to screw clients.

I was under the belief that your post I quoted was talking about the Eastern Bloc after the fall of Communism.

If you were intending it to be a general statement you should have made that clearer.

You are also wrong about rights and liberties. Whilst humankind may have had notions of freedom and rights, the modern concept of human rights and personal freedoms that you are referring to are a representation of a contract between the state and the individual, whether the state is represented by a single person like a king or whether its an entire organisation like a modern government.

The unwritten contract is this. You pay tax and obey laws. Time to time you may have to surrender your time in service to the state through conscription and make other sacrifices. In return you get certain rights and liberties recognised and receive services such as education, personal security, social security etc etc.

If you are writing a thesis on this subject then I'm sure you know this already.

[Rudy Tamasz]

I wrote my last thesis about a decade ago and that was that. I haven't started this discussion with developing the language for a thesis in mind. ;)

I see where you are coming from. You argue that I get the recognition of my rights and liberties in return for paying my dues. I.e. I'm a contractor and government rewards me for something (loyalty, taxes, military service, etc.). In my view I initiate the contract and purchase government's services. If I do not like the quality I may send the contractor to where the sun never shines and find somebody else to do the job. That's the fundamental difference between our views.

[Lousada]

Prove it!

They were not ill they were just bad.

Ill people can be cured, evil people cannot. Bad people must be ill or it would destroy the leftist ideal of creating the perfect society by shaping people to their ideal. Bad people cannot be shaped to an ideal but ill people can be cured of their imperfections.

[Malbec]

In my view I initiate the contract and purchase government's services. If I do not like the quality I may send the contractor to where the sun never shines and find somebody else to do the job. That's the fundamental difference between our views.

If you don't like the quality and happen to live in a democracy then the population as a whole can make a small difference by voting someone else in more in tune with what people want.

If you want a greater change then obviously revolution is in the air...

[BDunnell]

Ill people can be cured, evil people cannot. Bad people must be ill or it would destroy the leftist ideal of creating the perfect society by shaping people to their ideal. Bad people cannot be shaped to an ideal but ill people can be cured of their imperfections.

You seem — perhaps conveniently, in the name of your argument — to forget that ill people cannot always be cured.

[Malbec]

Ill people can be cured, evil people cannot. Bad people must be ill or it would destroy the leftist ideal of creating the perfect society by shaping people to their ideal. Bad people cannot be shaped to an ideal but ill people can be cured of their imperfections.

Ill people cannot always be cured. In terms of psychiatric problems and personality disorders MOST people cannot be cured, and people with these problems form the bulk of mass-murderers etc.

Trying to understand how and why people commit these crimes is essential if any attempt is to be made to identify them before the crimes are commited. Seeking the root cause helps do this.

Simply labelling them as 'bad' might be easy for people to understand but does nothing to help solve the problem.

[Rudy Tamasz]

If you don't like the quality and happen to live in a democracy then the population as a whole can make a small difference by voting someone else in more in tune with what people want.

If you want a greater change then obviously revolution is in the air...

Just don't let that tumor grow too large. Then you won't need a revolution to wipe it out.

[Knock-on]

Following on from Rollo's post, who admirably tried to keep at least one thread on subject, Government is just a reflection of it's people.

Is it Evil? As Evil as society in general. You will find some great people doing their very best in Government just as you will find people motivated by greed and avarice and just as you will find those traits throughout society.

You can tinker and tailor it but ultimately Government is made up of little bits of all of us.

[BDunnell]

Following on from Rollo's post, who admirably tried to keep at least one thread on subject, Government is just a reflection of it's people.

Is it Evil? As Evil as society in general. You will find some great people doing their very best in Government just as you will find people motivated by greed and avarice just as you will find those traits throughout society.

You can tinker and tailor it but ultimately Government is made up of little bits of all of us.

A most excellent post.

[chuck34]

Wrong. Rights and liberties are something the humankind was born with before any government existed. People choose voluntarily to restrain their liberties by imposing law on themselves and electing the government to guard the law with the purpose of achieving order, safety and security. Government is, therefore, is not a source of liberties and rights by any means. It is sort of a banker of human liberties and rights, who vows to keep those safe and give that deposit back to people when they request it. Alas, like many banks governments do not stick to their end of the deal and choose to screw clients.

Spot on. That is the basic philisopical view on governments that was used by the Founders of the US. I honestly don't know much about other governments so I will not speak to them. But here in the US that is the exact guiding principal used when the Constitution was written. If you study the Constitution and the Bill of Rights, they are not granting any rights to anyone. Those two documents are restraints on the Federal Government, a charter of negative liberties on the Federal Government, a limit to what they can do.

Now we all know that the US has not been, nor are we currently perfect. However, I believe that the idea that we are endowed by our Creator with the rights of Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happyness (or my prefered phrasing from the Virginia declaration of Rights, property) is true and that governments are simply mechanisims to prevent your L, L, PoH from infringing upon my L, L, PoH. Simply because we have not executed this ideal perfectly does not mean it is not true, nor that we should not continue to strive towards it.

[Bolton Midnight]

Still waiting for Bumdell to back up his post that they were sick rather than bad.

[BDunnell]

Still waiting for Bumdell to back up his post that they were sick rather than bad.

I don't know why I bother to dignify you with a response, but if you read back a few posts you will find that another member did so for me. In Malbec's words, 'In terms of psychiatric problems and personality disorders MOST people cannot be cured, and people with these problems form the bulk of mass-murderers etc.

Trying to understand how and why people commit these crimes is essential if any attempt is to be made to identify them before the crimes are commited. Seeking the root cause helps do this.

Simply labelling them as 'bad' might be easy for people to understand but does nothing to help solve the problem.'

That sums up my view perfectly.

[Bolton Midnight]

I don't know why I bother to dignify you with a response, but if you read back a few posts you will find that another member did so for me. In Malbec's words, 'In terms of psychiatric problems and personality disorders MOST people cannot be cured, and people with these problems form the bulk of mass-murderers etc.

Trying to understand how and why people commit these crimes is essential if any attempt is to be made to identify them before the crimes are commited. Seeking the root cause helps do this.

Simply labelling them as 'bad' might be easy for people to understand but does nothing to help solve the problem.'

That sums up my view perfectly.

As a bed wetting Liberal I'd expect you to think that way.

Guess you'd want them all released as soon as they have hoodwinked some bed wetting Liberal prison shrink too?

They can not be described as sick as that is just folk being too scared to address the problem that some sections of society are just bad.

Oh and committed has two Ts, state educated were you?

[Bob Riebe]

No that makes the people who allowed that government to exist to be evil, or incredibly stupid and ignorant.

[Bob Riebe]

First, the term 'evil' is too strong (in most instances of its use, not just this). Second, if government is 'evil', so too are large tracts of the private sector. NO but that makes the people who allowed that government to be in power to be either evil, or gullible to the point of being self-centered morons.

[Bob Riebe]

Sorry Rudy but you're artificially choosing what is acceptable to discuss and what is not.

If you are going to discuss the merits of government then it is only natural, even essential to discuss alternative systems. This could be the comparison of government with the lack of government (ie anarchy) or public vs private sector.

Ultimately though the government is not inherently evil or good. It is merely a tool for those who hold power and its effects are merely a reflection of the intention of those people. A car is not inherently good or evil either in much the same way.A car is an inanimate object, the analogy is silly.

That ranks with the old " cars are licensed, so guns should be."

The difficulty of obtaining or using either is controlled by governments, first, not the other way around.

[Bob Riebe]

Their actions define their description; although, how they are judged, depends on the moral standards of those doing the judging.

[Bob Riebe]

'They' by which I presume you mean governments did indeed bow to public pressure to increase rights which goes counter to your initial claim.

While I am against the reduction of human rights that happened in mnay countries as a response to 9/11 etc etc it would be very unfair to ignore that there was considerable pressure both from the public and media to do something concrete to reduce the chances of further attacks. Therefore whether increasing or decreasing human rights, in the examples you have chosen governments have to some degree tried to reflect public opinion.

NO-- except, the media proclaims what suits THERE agenda or bias. The media is not the people or related to it.

[Bob Riebe]

Then when about the point of good or bad they are bad. How bad they are, often justifies whether or not evil is a good term to describe it.

[BDunnell]

NO-- except, the media proclaims what suits THERE agenda or bias. The media is not the people or related to it.

But there is, I would argue, a very large extent to which public opinion is shaped by the media, thus inextricably interlinking the two.

[Bob Riebe]

Wrong. Rights and liberties are something the humankind was born with before any government existed..

WRONG.

No such thing existed.

Some government use that false standard to give man rights, which works out well for societies at times, but no such thing exists.

finwicks girlfreid sian lishman is a bitch

[BDunnell]

NO but that makes the people who allowed that government to be in power to be either evil, or gullible to the point of being self-centered morons.

There may be a whole range of other reasons beyond those you mention.

She eats poo

There may be a whole range of other reasons beyond those you mention.Shut the **** up bitch

[Bob Riebe]

But there is, I would argue, a very large extent to which public opinion is shaped by the media, thus inextricably interlinking the two.

Sadly true minus the inextricalby, as shown by priinting presses ending up in rivers, when the "press" said things certain societies found offending.

Chopping is a bender

chopping is a gay boy he likes boys bums

Petter solberg wrc thread

[BDunnell]

Sadly true minus the inextricalby, as shown by priinting presses ending up in rivers, when the "press" said things certain societies found offending.

Thankfully not in civilised societies.

People may claim their opinions are not influenced by the media, but they are. The problem is that some influences are positive and others negative. I know my views, for example, are influenced by reading stories of official wrongdoing in Private Eye.

[chuck34]

WRONG.

No such thing existed.

Some government use that false standard to give man rights, which works out well for societies at times, but no such thing exists.

What???? If man wasn't born with rights, and the government didn't give them to them. Then where do rights come from?

[BDunnell]

What???? If man wasn't born with rights, and the government didn't give them to them. Then where do rights come from?

I am with Bob on this. I question how your point can be argued with any certainty. Take, for instance, the right to life. How did this come about without someone — if not in government, then with some measure of authority — intervening to defend said right? There has to be some measure of intervention if rights are to be enforced.

[chuck34]

I am with Bob on this. I question how your point can be argued with any certainty. Take, for instance, the right to life. How did this come about without someone — if not in government, then with some measure of authority — intervening to defend said right? There has to be some measure of intervention if rights are to be enforced.

I am truley confused by Bob's post. He seems to argue that man is not born with any rights, and that government does not give you rights. He appears to be aruguing both sides, which I don't understand. Perhaps I'm reading his post wrong?

To your point ... We were endowed by our CREATOR with the rights of Life, Liberty and Pursuit of Happyness. Are you really going to argue that the government has granted you your right to life? If so don't they have just as much power to determine that you no longer have said right, and just exterminate you? Is that seriously your argument?

[Bob Riebe]

What???? If man wasn't born with rights, and the government didn't give them to them. Then where do rights come from?Rights, any rights, come from the legal system one lives under, period. (I said governments have used an item, that does not exist, as the reason, or excuse, to exercise their authority to grant LEGAL rights.)

Show me any other source.

If you are going to use the term "god given" show me in the Bible where these are given.
"God given" is a talking point used long before that term was common.

[chuck34]

Rights, any rights, come from the legal system one lives under, period. (I said governments have used an item, that does not exist, as the reason, or excuse, to exercise their authority to grant LEGAL rights.)

What is a legal system one lives under if not the government?


Show me any other source.

If you are going to use the term "god given" show me in the Bible where these are given.
"God given" is a talking point used long before that term was common.

Have you ever actually read the Bible? Ever hear of a little thing called the 10 Commandments? What do you think is the basis of law?

[Bolton Midnight]

NO but that makes the people who allowed that government to be in power to be either evil, or gullible to the point of being self-centered morons.

Labour were.are evil, and those that voted for them just self interest, so greedy and stupid

[BDunnell]

I am truley confused by Bob's post. He seems to argue that man is not born with any rights, and that government does not give you rights.

I did not see the latter part in what he said.



To your point ... We were endowed by our CREATOR with the rights of Life, Liberty and Pursuit of Happyness.

I am a devout atheist. Therefore I am in total disagreement with you on this point, I'm afraid.

[BDunnell]

Rights, any rights, come from the legal system one lives under, period. (I said governments have used an item, that does not exist, as the reason, or excuse, to exercise their authority to grant LEGAL rights.)

I don't believe this statement should be restricted to the legal system under which one lives; those that came before, often long before, must also be considered.

[chuck34]

I am a devout atheist. Therefore I am in total disagreement with you on this point, I'm afraid.

That's fine. I don't really want to debate God here with you. But if you don't acknowledge some form of a Creator, where do you believe that your rights come from, particularly life? A government that can just as easily revoke your rights as they granted them?

[Bob Riebe]

What is a legal system one lives under if not the government?



Have you ever actually read the Bible? Ever hear of a little thing called the 10 Commandments? What do you think is the basis of law?

Good Lord man, have you?

The Ten Commandments are absolute laws, that deliberately breaking gives one an express ticket to hell.
"Thou shalt not" is not part of the U.S. Bill of Rights, but is part of the Ten Commandments.

Do you know the difference between a legal right, and a government's law's?

The Jews had no other official government till their constant pissing and moaning cauised God to decide to give them their King, which turned out to be a cluster-f, for the morons who thought a man would be better than their God.

The laws in the Bible, are the worst thing to use as a legal reason for rights, of any source.

[Bob Riebe]

I don't believe this statement should be restricted to the legal system under which one lives; those that came before, often long before, must also be considered.Not concerning the rights one still has.
They may be a continualtion of previous rights, or rights other governments have granted, but said same rights may be voided, legally by the government one lives under at the moment.
They are legal rights, and laws of the government one lives under determines what is legal and what is not.

That was/IS why in the U.S. States Rights are now such a point of contention concerning the Constitutional authority of the Federal Government vs States Rights as granted by the U.S. Constitution.

[BDunnell]

That's fine. I don't really want to debate God here with you. But if you don't acknowledge some form of a Creator, where do you believe that your rights come from, particularly life? A government that can just as easily revoke your rights as they granted them?

On the general point, whatever one's views on matters of religion, I do not believe that the right to life is inherent in the very existence of life. That right had to develop. Who was responsible for that? Not everyone collectively, but certain individuals.

[BDunnell]

Not concerning the rights one still has.
They may be a continualtion of previous rights, or rights other governments have granted, but said same rights may be voided, legally by the government one lives under at the moment.
They are legal rights, and laws of the government one lives under determines what is legal and what is not.

That was/IS why in the U.S. States Rights are now such a point of contention concerning the Constitutional authority of the Federal Government vs States Rights as granted by the U.S. Constitution.

True, but I was referring to their development in the first place.

[chuck34]

Good Lord man, have you?

The Ten Commandments are absolute laws, that deliberately breaking gives one an express ticket to hell.
"Thou shalt not" is not part of the U.S. Bill of Rights, but is part of the Ten Commandments.

Thou shalt not murder, steal, etc. Yep those don't sound like laws protecting Life, or Property at all. :rolleyes:


Do you know the difference between a legal right, and a government's law's?

Please enlighten me.


The Jews had no other official government till their constant pissing and moaning cauised God to decide to give them their King, which turned out to be a cluster-f, for the morons who thought a man would be better than their God.

Wow, don't even know where to start.


The laws in the Bible, are the worst thing to use as a legal reason for rights, of any source.

Right so you are saying that common law does not trace back to the 10 Commandments?

[chuck34]

On the general point, whatever one's views on matters of religion, I do not believe that the right to life is inherent in the very existence of life. That right had to develop. Who was responsible for that? Not everyone collectively, but certain individuals.

So if you are born, you don't necessarily have the right to life? Again, are you really serious about this?

[Bolton Midnight]

I am a devout atheist.

So how did we all get here then?

[BDunnell]

So if you are born, you don't necessarily have the right to life? Again, are you really serious about this?

Maybe I should have been more clear. Let us go back to when human life began. In what sense did rights develop as soon as the first human being came into existence? They did not automatically exist. They, and all value systems, had to develop. Who was responsible for their development? As I said, not everybody, but certain individuals. In that process, certain rights will naturally have been taken away — the right to kill, for example. I fail to understand the difference between that process and the notion of formal government bestowing and denying rights.

[Bob Riebe]

Thou shalt not murder, steal, etc. Yep those don't sound like laws protecting Life, or Property at all. Only if one is totally clue-less to the difference between legal laws and legal rights.

Please enlighten me.
legal rights DefinitionLegally guaranteed powers available to a legal entity in realization or defense of its just and lawful claims or interests.
Legal rights (like laws) affect every citizen, whether or not the existence such rights is publicly known.
Oh my, rights are like laws, not the same thing. Your school failed you as a youth.

Right so you are saying that common law does not trace back to the 10 Commandments?

Give the man a cigar.
Show me where it does.
If you are going to use the Bible, give me the Bible verse that says having slaves is rightfully wrong.

``

[chuck34]

Maybe I should have been more clear. Let us go back to when human life began. In what sense did rights develop as soon as the first human being came into existence? They did not automatically exist. They, and all value systems, had to develop. Who was responsible for their development? As I said, not everybody, but certain individuals.

I, and anyone other than an athiest, would say God granted us the right to life. But if you are really dead set on not believing in that, how about once man developed a consious mind?


In that process, certain rights will naturally have been taken away — the right to kill, for example. I fail to understand the difference between that process and the notion of formal government bestowing and denying rights.

There has never been a right to kill. That interferes with someone else's right to Life. Thus the necessity for governments and laws, to protect your rights, and provide consequences to those who violate them. As such governments do not bestow or deny rights, they simply act as an arbitor when disputes arise.

[Bolton Midnight]

Maybe I should have been more clear. Let us go back to when human life began.

How did this happen, 1 minute no humans, the next, pow humans all over the planet?

[chuck34]

``

Wow, my school failed me as a youth. Good grounding for your arguments, personal insults, always gets you far.

[Bob Riebe]

I, and anyone other than an athiest, would say God granted us the right to life. But if you are really dead set on not believing in that, how about once man developed a consious mind?
Only in your mind or dogma.



There has never been a right to kill. That interferes with someone else's right to Life. Thus the necessity for governments and laws, to protect your rights, and provide consequences to those who violate them. As such governments do not bestow or deny rights, they simply act as an arbitor when disputes arise.
Wrong, go into the Bible where laws are given; one has the right, or legal authority, to kill a night intruder, no questions asked, but does not have the right to kill a day intruder without reason.

These are defined under the law, God created. NO pre-existing God given right.

[Bob Riebe]

Wow, my school failed me as a youth. Good grounding for your arguments, personal insults, always gets you far.Your rhetoric has failed you, so you had better blame someone as everything so far has said you are simply wrong.

OK so I will not blame your schooling and say you are wrong and are too stubborn to admit it, regardless of writings that prove you wrong.

[Bob Riebe]

How did this happen, 1 minute no humans, the next, pow humans all over the planet?
That is not the point of the discussion at the moment. Whether God created or man is an accident, does not matter. What does matter is why rights exist and what authority they have to exist.

[Bolton Midnight]

That is not the point of the discussion at the moment. Whether God created or man is an accident, does not matter. What does matter is why rights exist and what authority they have to exist.

Original Post didn't say that.

Just wondering why Bumdell thinks God doesn't exist, surely he has a rational and believable reason to think that way. Or is he just trying to be controversial and hip by claiming to be an atheist?

How did we all come about?

[Rollo]

Rights, any rights, come from the legal system one lives under, period. (I said governments have used an item, that does not exist, as the reason, or excuse, to exercise their authority to grant LEGAL rights.)

Show me any other source.

If you are going to use the term "god given" show me in the Bible where these are given.
"God given" is a talking point used long before that term was common.

Paul is at pains to point out in Romans 7 that the law doesn't create sin but merely serves to point out where it exists; this is also reemphasised in Galatians 3:24. The word "dikaiothomen" is an Aorist Passive Greek verb which is to say that it points out a thing existing always in the perfect sense. That means that the thing (in this case the law) always existed before it was codified. The law ALWAYS existed.

A "right" at law doesn't necessarily have to be spelled out in the positive sense. A right can also be shown in preventing the negative.


The laws in the Bible, are the worst thing to use as a legal reason for rights, of any source.

Well if that's your attitude, then I'm sorry but as an ambassador for your faith (if presumably you have any) then this is a rubbish attitude to have. One one hand you demand proof from the bible but on the other refuse to accept it as proof. What's it to be?


There has never been a right to kill. That interferes with someone else's right to Life. Thus the necessity for governments and laws, to protect your rights, and provide consequences to those who violate them. As such governments do not bestow or deny rights, they simply act as an arbitor when disputes arise.

I think that Chuck's statement is most excellent. :up:

Whether you do or don't believe in the existance of God (that is a separate and distinct debate) the point is that people's rights extend from their inherent dignity as human beings.
The writers of the Declaration of Independence thought it was self-evident that people's rights are inalienable, the writers of the UDHR also thought that it was inherent that people's rights are inalienable.
People have fought wars in order to protect their rights. The suggestion that they only arise because of the operation of law is (and I use Mr Riebe's favourite word here) asinine.

[Brown, Jon Brow]

Just wondering why Bumdell thinks God doesn't exist, surely he has a rational and believable reason to think that way.

I think he is might have the same reasoning as to why I don't believe in Father Christmas.

[Bob Riebe]

Paul is at pains to point out in Romans 7 that the law doesn't create sin but merely serves to point out where it exists; this is also reemphasised in Galatians 3:24. The word "dikaiothomen" is an Aorist Passive Greek verb which is to say that it points out a thing existing always in the perfect sense. That means that the thing (in this case the law) always existed before it was codified. The law ALWAYS existed.

A "right" at law doesn't necessarily have to be spelled out in the positive sense. A right can also be shown in preventing the negative. Give me the legal system, (a binding one not make believe wannabe) that sets legal rights by that dogma

Well if that's your attitude, then I'm sorry but as an ambassador for your faith (if presumably you have any) then this is a rubbish attitude to have. One one hand you demand proof from the bible but on the other refuse to accept it as proof. What's it to be?
Jesus came to give man salvation, not legal rights under any system. You are trying to reduce Jesus sacrifice to some legal beagles talking points. Give the the absolute statement in the Bible that gives rights. Failure to do so makes your rhetoric some more want it to be so--baseless rhetoric.
In the Bible the word of God, said what it meant and meant what it said, it was not to be interpreted to suit some men's dogma. The doing of such is why we have a myriead of "Christian" dogmas.

I think that Chuck's statement is most excellent. :up: It is still in reality so much man-made bs.

Whether you do or don't believe in the existance of God (that is a separate and distinct debate) the point is that people's rights extend from their inherent dignity as human beings.
The writers of the Declaration of Independence thought it was self-evident that people's rights are inalienable, the writers of the UDHR also thought that it was inherent that people's rights are inalienable.
People have fought wars in order to protect their rights. The suggestion that they only arise because of the operation of law is (and I use Mr Riebe's favourite word here) asinine.
I do not care what they used to form their opinions. Opinions are all they are, but fortunately for us in the U.S. they used them to form our Constitution.
The fact they gave us legal rights, does not change the fact there is no such thing, in writing, such as God given rights.

[Bolton Midnight]

I think he is might have the same reasoning as to why I don't believe in Father Christmas.

What that all the humans were made in China like the toys by (oh hang on can't be as of course I was going to say humans but they didn't exist).

Santa, Tooth Fairy etc are fairly easy to explain away, even Bumdell could manage that, but if say God doesn't exist then how did we as a species turn up? Can't be evolution as there aren't any of our earlier versions being found.

[Rollo]

Give me the legal system, (a binding one not make believe wannabe) that sets legal rights by that dogma.

The one that existed before the creation of the world.

Genesis 4:8-10 - How could God judge Cain if the law as you suggest didn't yet exist?
Genesis 39:7-9 - How did Joesph know adultery was against the law if the law as you suggest didn't yet exist?

Remember, the law wasn't given until Exodus 20.


Jesus came to give man salvation, not legal rights under any system. You are trying to reduce Jesus sacrifice to some legal beagles talking points. Give the the absolute statement in the Bible that give rights. Failure to do so makes your rhetoric some more want it to be so--baseless rhetoric.

Salvation has nothing whatsoever to do either giving or negating rights. Christ's death and resurrection is to do with payment for violating the law; that law existed before the creation of the world. How much of the law do to you wish me to quote? All of it?

A right is a legal or ethical entitlement. A written law can either express an entitlement positively, or negatively by prohibiting an action. Why would the law need to be written at all unless there was a right which needed protection?

Baseless rhetoric? Hardly. I do notice though that you have failed to cite anything to show your opinions.

[Bob Riebe]

The one that existed before the creation of the world.

Genesis 4:8-10 - How could God judge Cain if the law as you suggest didn't yet exist?
Genesis 39:7-9 - How did Joesph know adultery was against the law if the law as you suggest didn't yet exist?

Remember, the law wasn't given until Exodus 20.



Salvation has nothing whatsoever to do either giving or negating rights. Christ's death and resurrection is to do with payment for violating the law; that law existed before the creation of the world. How much of the law do to you wish me to quote? All of it?

A right is a legal or ethical entitlement. A written law can either express an entitlement positively, or negatively by prohibiting an action. Why would the law need to be written at all unless there was a right which needed protection?

Baseless rhetoric? Hardly. I do notice though that you have failed to cite anything to show your opinions.
We know, next to NOTHING of all that transpired between Adam and Eve, and the first murder. People, act as if the Bible were speaking of weeks or months not tens of tens of decades.
The Bible gives the laws we know of, yet before those laws, when Cain killed Able, Cain feared not God, but what other people were going to do to him.
Crying "God given rights" is really is as much a sin, as it is putting words into God's mouth, as Job committed and was castigated for.
To use the Bible verses you are to prove God gave something, is taking the Bible out of context to prove a point the verses in the Bible are not addressing.

If one is of the faith, although depending on which dogma one follows, one believes as is written in Ecclesiates- "Nothing is new under the sun." (Satan was cast out of heaven with his angels for committing crimes against God. Laws existed long before the creation, or rebuilding, of the earth as we now know it. One right God gave man, was the right to condemn him/her self to hell if so chosen. Even God cannot revoke that from anyone.
At the same time God does not have the right to sin, ever.)

That still doe not say that God gives anyone or thing any rights beyond those bestowed by the powers they live under.

Here is the only definition of rights that has any bearing on persons as these are, or can be defended by legal process:


RIGHTS
In an abstract sense, justice, ethical correctness, or harmony with the rules of law or the principles of morals. In a concrete legal sense, a power, privilege, demand, or claim possessed by a particular person by virtue of law.

Each legal right that an individual possesses relates to a corresponding legal duty imposed on another. For example, when a person owns a home and property, he has the right to possess and enjoy it free from the interference of others, who are under a corresponding duty not to interfere with the owner's rights by trespassing on the property or breaking into the home.

In Constitutional Law, rights are classified as natural, civil, and political. Natural rights are those that are believed to grow out of the nature of the individual human being and depend on her personality, such as the rights to life, liberty, privacy, and the pursuit of happiness.

Civil Rights are those that belong to every citizen of the state, and are not connected with the organization or administration of government. They include the rights of property, marriage, protection by law, freedom to contract, trial by jury, and the like. These rights are capable of being enforced or redressed in a civil action in a court.

Political rights entail the power to participate directly or indirectly in the establishment or administration of government, such as the right of citizenship, the right to vote, and the right to hold public office.

[Rollo]

Let's run with this then:


Here is the only definition of rights that has any bearing on persons as these are, or can be defended by legal process:
...
Natural rights are those that are believed to grow out of the nature of the individual human being and depend on her personality, such as the rights to life, liberty, privacy, and the pursuit of happiness.

I think I captured the spirit of this right at the beginning.


people's rights extend from their inherent dignity as human beings.

Would you like proof of the inherent dignity of human beings? Genesis 1:27 and Psalm 8 should suffice. Who would give mankind that inherent dignity?

Check and Mate. QED.

[Bob Riebe]

Let's run with this then:

I think I captured the spirit of this right at the beginning.

Would you like proof of the inherent dignity of human beings? Genesis 1:27 and Psalm 8 should suffice. Who would give mankind that inherent dignity?

Check and Mate. QED.
I am afraid you did the basic Bible quoters stunt with my paste, you put, out of context only that which served you.
You forgot--In --CONSTITUTIONAL LAW-- rights are --CLASSIFIED-- as natural, civil, and political.


Gen. 1:
26And God said, Let us make man in our image, after our likeness: and let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over the cattle, and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth. 27So God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them--- and man took that image and corrupted it; there is nothing that speaks of dignity there.

Sorry, but in todays world, and the world of man-- no legal backing it does not exist, which is why the full text of what I pasted said CONSTITUTIONAL LAW.
We are not speaking of rewards in heaven and man's soul; we are speaking of survival and life on earth, under man's law.
Ideological ideals are worth nothing, except to feel good philosophers.

Natural rights DO NOT exist. They have no legal backing.

Mark chapter 7:
15There is nothing from without a man, that entering into him can defile him: but the things which come out of him, those are they that defile the man. 16If any man have ears to hear, let him hear.

17And when he was entered into the house from the people, his disciples asked him concerning the parable. 18And he saith unto them, Are ye so without understanding also? Do ye not perceive, that whatsoever thing from without entereth into the man, it cannot defile him; 19Because it entereth not into his heart, but into the belly, and goeth out into the draught, purging all meats? 20And he said, That which cometh out of the man, that defileth the man. 21For from within, out of the heart of men, proceed evil thoughts, adulteries, fornications, murders, 22Thefts, covetousness, wickedness, deceit, lasciviousness, an evil eye, blasphemy, pride, foolishness: 23All these evil things come from within, and defile the man.

If that is dignified, one has very low standards.
Checkmate.

[Rudy Tamasz]

So if you are born, you don't necessarily have the right to life? Again, are you really serious about this?

Why are you surprised, Chuck? You might link that to the abortion debate and you'll get a comprehensive picture of certain people's mentality.

[SGWilko]

I am with Bob on this. I question how your point can be argued with any certainty. Take, for instance, the right to life. How did this come about without someone — if not in government, then with some measure of authority — intervening to defend said right? There has to be some measure of intervention if rights are to be enforced.

Right to life - that was probably dictated to us by some chinless wonder in Brussels who wrapped it up in something the criminally minded use to get away with their crimes - it's called the human rights act.

[SGWilko]

What is a legal system one lives under if not the government?



Have you ever actually read the Bible? Ever hear of a little thing called the 10 Commandments? What do you think is the basis of law?

The Bible - is that document fact, or just heresay from the 'witness accounts' of people who may or may not exist, but no-one has as yet been able to prove existed.....

[SGWilko]

So how did we all get here then?

UPS delivery - it wasn't on time I might add, and the state of society today tells you the goods were damaged in transit..... :p

[SGWilko]

Maybe I should have been more clear. Let us go back to when human life began. In what sense did rights develop as soon as the first human being came into existence? They did not automatically exist. They, and all value systems, had to develop. Who was responsible for their development? As I said, not everybody, but certain individuals. In that process, certain rights will naturally have been taken away — the right to kill, for example. I fail to understand the difference between that process and the notion of formal government bestowing and denying rights.

Do animals have or need rights, let alone government - they get along just fine (the ones that are not buggered out of existence by humans that is)

[SGWilko]

How did this happen, 1 minute no humans, the next, pow humans all over the planet?

Earth's immigration policy failed.... :laugh:

[SGWilko]

I think he is might have the same reasoning as to why I don't believe in Father Christmas.

What, no Santa? :bigcry:

[SGWilko]

but if say God doesn't exist then how did we as a species turn up? Can't be evolution as there aren't any of our earlier versions being found.

That's not strictly true - it is accepted by many that we evolved from apes.

Father Christmas is an invention to sell toys.

Is God/Jesus an invention for the financial benefit of the Church?

Why are so many priests child molestors? A God surely would not be that evil to create such monsters????

All just my opinion of course......

[ShiftingGears]

Can't be evolution as there aren't any of our earlier versions being found.

You do realise that the theory of evolution stems from survival of the fittest, so human ancestors less adapted to the environment die off, right? And I assume you know why something which has been dead for thousands of years may be difficult/impossible to find.

[gadjo_dilo]

I'm working for our government. Now I feel like I'm serving "evil"....

[Bolton Midnight]

Earth's immigration policy failed.... :laugh:

ahh so that does make us all invading aliens?

[Bolton Midnight]

That's not strictly true - it is accepted by many that we evolved from apes.

Father Christmas is an invention to sell toys.

Is God/Jesus an invention for the financial benefit of the Church?

Why are so many priests child molestors? A God surely would not be that evil to create such monsters????

All just my opinion of course......

But we have plenty of apes and we have humans so where's the bit inbetween? The missing links as assume it was a gradual thing. Was a cave dweller really hairy like in the films?

That's more a Catholic thing as they aren't allowed to get their end away, be a better idea to let them get wed etc. Plus a job like that will attract those who want to abuse it, I'd imagine there are more paedos within care system than say banking.

[SGWilko]

so where's the bit inbetween?.

I think he is running our HR dept....!!! ;)

[Bolton Midnight]

You do realise that the theory of evolution stems from survival of the fittest, so human ancestors less adapted to the environment die off, right? And I assume you know why something which has been dead for thousands of years may be difficult/impossible to find.

But where are their less evolved skeletal remains? When they find a skeleton from yonks back, its same as yours and mine, no tweaks here and there. We can find dinosaur fossils so why not missing link skeletons? Why because they don't exist.

If we were really adapting why are the same diseases killing us now as hundreds of years ago?

[SGWilko]

If we were really adapting why are the same diseases killing us now as hundreds of years ago?

The diseases are mutating/evolving to become risilient to the medications we have developed......

Go look in the Natural History Museum for the evidence of mans evolution......

[Bolton Midnight]

I think he is running our HR dept....!!! ;)

HR, I remember when it was called personnel, progress eh?

[SGWilko]

HR, I remember when it was called personnel, progress eh?

Evolution perhaps? :laugh:

[Bolton Midnight]

The diseases are mutating/evolving to become risilient to the medications we have developed......

Go look in the Natural History Museum for the evidence of mans evolution......

But man made medicines aren't really part of evolution.

Why what is there, real skeletons showing our various versions or just someone's guesses because they don't like the fairy tale version of some greater being?

[SGWilko]

But man made medicines aren't really part of evolution.

Why what is there, real skeletons showing our various versions or just someone's guesses because they don't like the fairy tale version of some greater being?

Go take a look so you can come to your own conclusions is all I can suggest.

The evidence is quite compelling.

[Bolton Midnight]

Go take a look so you can come to your own conclusions is all I can suggest.

The evidence is quite compelling.

Only if you want it to be, if there really was concrete evidence that God didn't exist I think the bible bashers would have torched the place by now.

[SGWilko]

Only if you want it to be, if there really was concrete evidence that God didn't exist I think the bible bashers would have torched the place by now.

Touche - there is little evidence that God did/does exist - the Shroud of Turin gets rolled out once in a while - we get a few days off in December and March....

Or is it Jehova, or Budha, or Allah? So many beliefs that ultimately have been the cause of so many wars and loss of life....

Not much of a case there.......

[Bolton Midnight]

Religion doesn't cause wars, people cause wars.

Religion is smarter than science though as it relies on faith so doesn't have to prove itself, in fact if it did then it would vanish in moment of logic.

[SGWilko]

Religion doesn't cause wars, people cause wars.

Religion is smarter than science though as it relies on faith so doesn't have to prove itself, in fact if it did then it would vanish in moment of logic.

Without people there is no religion........

[Bolton Midnight]

Without people there is no religion........

But it is not the fault of religion that there is wars, it is people misinterpreting their good books that leads to wars.

[SGWilko]

But it is not the fault of religion that there is wars, it is people misinterpreting their good books that leads to wars.

Therefore, if there were no religion, there would be a lot less war......

[Bolton Midnight]

Therefore, if there were no religion, there would be a lot less war......

Might as well say if there was no metal for swords, bullets, guns etc there would be no wars. But am sure pre religion cave men would fight over caves, women, food etc. So no religion is NOT the cause of wars.

[SGWilko]

Might as well say if there was no metal for swords, bullets, guns etc there would be no wars. But am sure pre religion cave men would fight over caves, women, food etc. So no religion is NOT the cause of wars.

Indeed, but you will note I said 'a lot less war'.

[chuck34]

Why are you surprised, Chuck? You might link that to the abortion debate and you'll get a comprehensive picture of certain people's mentality.

I understand that Rudy, and I'm sure that's why most people think abortion is ok. But it's a slippery road. Without going "there", under this belief what stops someone from saying you don't have blond hair and blue eyes, your right to life is hereby revoked?

[chuck34]

The Bible - is that document fact, or just heresay from the 'witness accounts' of people who may or may not exist, but no-one has as yet been able to prove existed.....

Honestly it doesn't matter if the Bible is pure fact or pure fary tail. It doesn't even matter if you believe in it or not. The point is that common law has its basis in the 10 Commandments, like it or not, believe it or not. People millinia ago did believe it, and based laws on it.

[Bob Riebe]

Therefore, if there were no religion, there would be a lot less war...... Really, hmmmm, Genghis Khan and Alexander the Great, what religion drove their military campaigns. The same would go for the Roman Empire.
Are you saying religion based war is the creation of modern man?

[Bob Riebe]

I understand that Rudy, and I'm sure that's why most people think abortion is ok. But it's a slippery road. Without going "there", under this belief what stops someone from saying you don't have blond hair and blue eyes, your right to life is hereby revoked?Are you saying God is evil for causing spontaneous abortions in women?
(To be fair, I think abortion should be illegal after the first tri-mester-- except for medical yada-yada-yada....)

[Bob Riebe]

Honestly it doesn't matter if the Bible is pure fact or pure fary tail. It doesn't even matter if you believe in it or not. The point is that common law has its basis in the 10 Commandments, like it or not, believe it or not. People millinia ago did believe it, and based laws on it.

If the Bible is a farce, Christians lose nothing; if it is fact, Christians gained a blessed eternity.

[Mark]

But that assumes that the 10 commandments were invented on the spot and before that it was ok to steal and murder?

Perhaps they are just the first recorded record of what was already well understood.

[chuck34]

Bob, I don't really think going down this religous path with you is adding anything to the point of discussion. We have strayed from the point, where do the rights of man come from?

You seem to believe that they have been granted by some "legal" entity at some point in our history. My take on that is to say that if rights were granted by a "legal" entity at some arbitrary point in time, they can just as easily be taken away at an arbitrary point in time. How do you propose that we may protect our rights if this is the case?

[donKey jote]

That's not strictly true - it is accepted by many that we evolved from apes.

That's not strictly true either... it is accepted by many that we and apes evolved from a common ancestor. :)

[Mark]

The price of freedom is eternal vigilence?

[donKey jote]

common law has its basis in the 10 Commandments,
Are you implying that without your bible there would be no common law?
It's the other way round: the 10 commandments were more likely based on the common law at that point in space and time :)

[chuck34]

But that assumes that the 10 commandments were invented on the spot and before that it was ok to steal and murder?

Perhaps they are just the first recorded record of what was already well understood.

That very well could be the case. But the people that wrote them down believed them to be God-given. And the people who have based law on them for millinia have also believed them to be God-given. So if you believe them to be truly God-given or not honestly doesn't matter at this point. They are what they are.

[chuck34]

Are you implying that without your bible there would be no common law?
It's the other way round: the 10 commandments were more likely based on the common law at that point in space and time :)

Again, that could be the case. But then they are just a codification of what was believed to be God-given law.

[Bob Riebe]

But that assumes that the 10 commandments were invented on the spot and before that it was ok to steal and murder?

Perhaps they are just the first recorded record of what was already well understood.Bingo.
The Bible, I believe, calls the Jews a hard-headed people, so the Ten Commandments were God's way refreshing what already existed and making them a written absolute.

What happened when Moses came down with the first copy showed what happens when God gets out the Holy Two-by-Four.

[Bob Riebe]

Bob, I don't really think going down this religous path with you is adding anything to the point of discussion. We have strayed from the point, where do the rights of man come from?

You seem to believe that they have been granted by some "legal" entity at some point in our history. My take on that is to say that if rights were granted by a "legal" entity at some arbitrary point in time, they can just as easily be taken away at an arbitrary point in time. How do you propose that we may protect our rights if this is the case?That is why the Second Amendment exists.

The writers of the Constitution knew government is not an inherently good body, and if it becomes corrupted there must be a way for what it took the country to come into existance to be repeated, if need be.

[chuck34]

That is why the Second Amendment exists.

The writers of the Constitution knew government is not an inherently good body, and if it becomes corrupted there must be a way for what it took the country to come into existance to be repeated, if need be.

I agree with what you have said in this post 100%.

However, I'm not sure it is 100% consistent with what you have said. What I mean is, you seem to be arguing that your rights come from government or the law, whatever. If that is the case, and government or the law takes said rights away, what basis do you have for your revolution?

There must be firm grounding for your rights. That grounding can be God, nature, human consiousness, whatever. There is just too much ambiguity, changability, or arbitraryness in basing your fundamental rights in "the law".

[Bob Riebe]

I agree with what you have said in this post 100%.

However, I'm not sure it is 100% consistent with what you have said. What I mean is, you seem to be arguing that your rights come from government or the law, whatever. If that is the case, and government or the law takes said rights away, what basis do you have for your revolution?

There must be firm grounding for your rights. That grounding can be God, nature, human consiousness, whatever. There is just too much ambiguity, changability, or arbitraryness in basing your fundamental rights in "the law".The grounding for any rights, whether Federal or State, comes from the Constitution, whether Federal or State.
Those cannot be taken away, except by Constitutional Amendment, in which case fools may end-up serving their own folly.

The way this/these government/s, and the courts, seem to be ignoring, or trying to rewrite, rather than follow, the current Constitution/s in their own image, is very disturbing.

Other countries also have Constitutions, how strong they are depends on how strong the people are in defending their rights rather than being servants of the government.

Venezuela, is now a place to watch for the Constitution verses the Government. (Courts serving the Constitution vs. the Government is also an item that must be watched closely.)

[chuck34]

The grounding for any rights, whether Federal or State, comes from the Constitution, whether Federal or State.
Those cannot be taken away, except by Constitutional Amendment, in which case fools may end-up serving their own folly.

The way this/these government/s, and the courts, seem to be ignoring, or trying to rewrite, rather than follow, the current Constitution/s in their own image, is very disturbing.

Other countries also have Constitutions, how strong they are depends on how strong the people are in defending their rights rather than being servants of the government.

Venezuela, is now a place to watch for the Constitution verses the Government. (Courts serving the Constitution vs. the Government is also an item that must be watched closely.)

Are you then saying that the Founding Fathers just made up rights when they wrote the Constitution?

If we got a Constiutional Amendment stating that anyone named Bob must be a slave to the rest of society, or die, you'd be just fine with that?

[Bob Riebe]

Are you then saying that the Founding Fathers just made up rights when they wrote the Constitution?

If we got a Constiutional Amendment stating that anyone named Bob must be a slave to the rest of society, or die, you'd be just fine with that?You got it.

We had a thing where everyone from Africa was a slave to society. The Constitution and a war did away with that.

Although Lincoln actually ignored parts of the Constitution to save the Union. Nothing in government does not have flaws.
The dealing of the Missouri-Kansas border war that led in to the Civil War, emphasized the failing and imperfecton of laws, and why chaos is sometimes better than the letter of the law.

[chuck34]

You got it.

We had a thing where everyone from Africa was a slave to society. The Constitution and a war did away with that.

Although Lincoln actually ignored parts of the Constitution to save the Union. Nothing in government does not have flaws.
The dealing of the Missouri-Kansas border war that led in to the Civil War, emphasized the failing and imperfecton of laws, and why chaos is sometimes better than the letter of the law.

I clearly stated in my first (or one of) post in this thread that the US is not perfect, there are flaws with our Constitution, our laws, and our leaders.


But please clarify one thing for me. Are you actually saying that the Founders just pulled rights out of the sky? That somehow they didn't believe the words they wrote?
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.

or how about this
When in the Course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another, and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.

What is this Law or Nature and Nature's God which they speak, if as you say they pulled rights out of thin air?

[Rollo]

But please clarify one thing for me. Are you actually saying that the Founders just pulled rights out of the sky? That somehow they didn't believe the words they wrote?

What is this Law or Nature and Nature's God which they speak, if as you say they pulled rights out of thin air?

There is no such thing as God given rights according to Bob. He is in effect saying that the Founders just pulled rights out of the sky.


I do not care what they used to form their opinions. Opinions are all they are, but fortunately for us in the U.S. they used them to form our Constitution.
The fact they gave us legal rights, does not change the fact there is no such thing, in writing, such as God given rights.

Even when presented with reasonable grounds taken from the bible (which he demands as the only allowable source) he still refused to concede that natural rights exist. (See pages 6 & 7)

[anthonyvop]

Feds to design health insurance for the masses (http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories/U/US_MANDATED_HEALTH_BENEFITS?SITE=AP&SECTION=HOME&TEMPLATE=DEFAULT&CTIME=2011-10-06-19-09-42)

In this case Government is Very, Very Evil!!!

[Bob Riebe]

I clearly stated in my first (or one of) post in this thread that the US is not perfect, there are flaws with our Constitution, our laws, and our leaders.
But please clarify one thing for me. Are you actually saying that the Founders just pulled rights out of the sky? That somehow they didn't believe the words they wrote? Way back in post 99- I said:

I do not care what they used to form their opinions. Opinions are all they are, but fortunately for us in the U.S. they used them to form our Constitution.
The fact they gave us legal rights, does not change the fact there is no such thing, in writing, such as God given rights. ``

[Bob Riebe]

There is no such thing as God given rights according to Bob. He is in effect saying that the Founders just pulled rights out of the sky.



Even when presented with reasonable grounds taken from the bible (which he demands as the only allowable source) he still refused to concede that natural rights exist. (See pages 6 & 7)Cut and paste the verse/verses that state in Bible God gave man rights.
If you cannot you are merely flatulating with your keyboard.

Just as we have a thousand denominations because man trys to make the Bible serve his dogma rather than man follow God's; our founders assumed in their opinion that man should have rights.
Influenced by God, I would bet money that is an absolute. Did God anywhere grant men rights, NO, period.
To make the statement "God given rights," is a fools folly which weakens the basis of a good thing.

The regulation of slavery in the Bible, and absence of outright condemnation of it as an institution, was later used to justify slavery by its defenders.
They used God's word to form their governing rules also.

[Rollo]

Cut and paste the verse/verses that state in Bible God gave man rights.


I've already stated that rights extend from human dignity, and shown at law the principle at work; and yet still it isn't good enough for you.

Likewise you can not "Cut and paste the verse" that suggests that magnetism or kangaroos exist, are you going to deny those as well?

[Bob Riebe]

I've already stated that rights extend from human dignity, and shown at law the principle at work; and yet still it isn't good enough for you.

Likewise you can not "Cut and paste the verse" that suggests that magnetism or kangaroos exist, are you going to deny those as well?

THIS is the dignity of man:
17And when he was entered into the house from the people, his disciples asked him concerning the parable. 18And he saith unto them, Are ye so without understanding also? Do ye not perceive, that whatsoever thing from without entereth into the man, it cannot defile him; 19Because it entereth not into his heart, but into the belly, and goeth out into the draught, purging all meats? 20And he said, That which cometh out of the man, that defileth the man. 21For from within, out of the heart of men, proceed evil thoughts, adulteries, fornications, murders, 22Thefts, covetousness, wickedness, deceit, lasciviousness, an evil eye, blasphemy, pride, foolishness: 23All these evil things come from within, and defile the man.

Some here are proclaiming "God given rights"--- PROVE IT!

IF something God did, as proclaimed by men exists, then it exists in the Bible.
God did not play guessing games, so where is it?

I do not care if our founders reading of the Christian Faith, made their opinions that citizens should have absolute rights. I am gland they did, but it came out of their opinions of what they believed, NOTHING that God proclaimed man had an absolute possesion of.

[Bob Riebe]

Feds to design health insurance for the masses (http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories/U/US_MANDATED_HEALTH_BENEFITS?SITE=AP&SECTION=HOME&TEMPLATE=DEFAULT&CTIME=2011-10-06-19-09-42)

In this case Government is Very, Very Evil!!!While the Obama defends his gun-running flunky cabinet member, I hope this additional socialist pos helps his socialist house of cards collapse.

[Malbec]

I've already stated that rights extend from human dignity, and shown at law the principle at work; and yet still it isn't good enough for you.

Likewise you can not "Cut and paste the verse" that suggests that magnetism or kangaroos exist, are you going to deny those as well?

The point I believe Bob is trying to make is a simple one, that the rights referred to in the US constitution are an interpretation made by the writers of human rights using the bible as a base only. The interpretation is therefore subject to cultural values of the time. The bible itself does not make a specific declaration of human rights unlike the US constitution.

Ultimately while principles such as human dignity and liberty have existed for eternity or at least since human society has developed, the idea of clearly delineated human rights has only existed for as long as there has been government. After all the notion of human rights is the basis for the social contract between government and the individual. One does not refer to human rights when talking about areas of life where the government is not involved.

[Rudy Tamasz]

The price of freedom is eternal vigilence?

Very much so.

[chuck34]

``

So now that I am absolutely clear on your opinion, sometimes I have trouble deciphering your answers, sorry. Can you please answer the questions I asked of you earlier ... Would it be ok under your philosophy for there to be an amendment to the US Constitution that allows for all all men named Bob to be enslaved? And secondly, you stated that there is a "right of revolution" (which I agree with actually), but where is that stated in your philosophy?

[chuck34]

The point I believe Bob is trying to make is a simple one, that the rights referred to in the US constitution are an interpretation made by the writers of human rights using the bible as a base only. The interpretation is therefore subject to cultural values of the time. The bible itself does not make a specific declaration of human rights unlike the US constitution.

But it does, in it's own way. The rights of Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happyness (or Property)** can be seen in Commandments 5-10. Those Commandments expressly protect Life and Property, and Liberty is implicit outside effecting someone else's Life or Property.

**these are not actually in the Constitution, but I would say they heavily influenced our founding and our government.


Ultimately while principles such as human dignity and liberty have existed for eternity or at least since human society has developed, the idea of clearly delineated human rights has only existed for as long as there has been government. After all the notion of human rights is the basis for the social contract between government and the individual. One does not refer to human rights when talking about areas of life where the government is not involved.

Now days what part of life is the government not involved in? :D

Again, if there are no absolute rights, if they are all based on what a government tells you you have the right to do, then the government can very easily take those rights away. And under this philosophy of government given rights the individual would not have any reason to protest a perceved injustice, because what standard do you measure justice against at that point.

[Knock-on]

OK, lets look at some of these Commandments that God gave us shall we?

Do not murder
Do not steal
Do not commit Adultery
Do not commit perjury
Do not desire married women

Then we have the other stuff:

Only worship the one God (ie him)
Don't make any images of God, Heaven or Hell etc.
Do not swear falsely in the name of God
Observe the Shabbat
Honour your father and mother

Now, the first 5 I mentioned tend to be the founding principles of legal principles around the globe whether Christian or not. For example, the code of Ur-Nammu covers, this and a lot more.


1. If a man commits a murder, that man must be killed.
2. If a man commits a robbery, he will be killed.
3. If a man commits a kidnapping, he is to be imprisoned and pay 15 shekels of silver.
4. If a slave marries a slave, and that slave is set free, he does not leave the household.
5. If a slave marries a native (i.e. free) person, he/she is to hand the firstborn son over to his owner.
6. If a man violates the right of another and deflowers the virgin wife of a young man, they shall kill that male.
7. If the wife of a man followed after another man and he slept with her, they shall slay that woman, but that male shall be set free. (§4 in some translations)
8. If a man proceeded by force, and deflowered the virgin slavewoman of another man, that man must pay five shekels of silver.
9. If a man divorces his first-time wife, he shall pay her one mina of silver.
10. If it is a (former) widow whom he divorces, he shall pay her half a mina of silver.
11. If the man had slept with the widow without there having been any marriage contract, he need not pay any silver.
13. If a man is accused of sorcery he must undergo ordeal by water; if he is proven innocent, his accuser must pay 3 shekels.
14. If a man accused the wife of a man of adultery, and the river ordeal proved her innocent, then the man who had accused her must pay one-third of a mina of silver.
15. If a prospective son-in-law enters the house of his prospective father-in-law, but his father-in-law later gives his daughter to another man, the father-in-law shall return to the rejected son-in-law twofold the amount of bridal presents he had brought.
17. If a slave escapes from the city limits, and someone returns him, the owner shall pay two shekels to the one who returned him.
18. If a man knocks out the eye of another man, he shall weigh out ½ a mina of silver.
19. If a man has cut off another man’s foot, he is to pay ten shekels.
20. If a man, in the course of a scuffle, smashed the limb of another man with a club, he shall pay one mina of silver.
21. If someone severed the nose of another man with a copper knife, he must pay two-thirds of a mina of silver.
22. If a man knocks out a tooth of another man, he shall pay two shekels of silver.
24. [...] If he does not have a slave, he is to pay 10 shekels of silver. If he does not have silver, he is to give another thing that belongs to him.
25. If a man’s slave-woman, comparing herself to her mistress, speaks insolently to her, her mouth shall be scoured with 1 quart of salt.
28. If a man appeared as a witness, and was shown to be a perjurer, he must pay fifteen shekels of silver.
29. If a man appears as a witness, but withdraws his oath, he must make payment, to the extent of the value in litigation of the case.
30. If a man stealthily cultivates the field of another man and he raises a complaint, this is however to be rejected, and this man will lose his expenses.
31. If a man flooded the field of a man with water, he shall measure out three kur of barley per iku of field.
32. If a man had let an arable field to a(nother) man for cultivation, but he did not cultivate it, turning it into wasteland, he shall measure out three kur of barley per iku of field.

This comes from more than 2100BC which is a bit earlier than the Exodus isn't it?

[Knock-on]

The second lot are nothing to do with Laws and morals apart from the Father and Mother one. Does anyone still observe the second 5 apart from the parents?

So, it seems the word of God on the most important story in the bible, where this God actually provided evidence of his existence (which has been lost :rolleyes: ) isn't followed by supposed Christians :laugh:

Talk about hypocrisy

[Bob Riebe]

So now that I am absolutely clear on your opinion, sometimes I have trouble deciphering your answers, sorry. Can you please answer the questions I asked of you earlier ... Would it be ok under your philosophy for there to be an amendment to the US Constitution that allows for all all men named Bob to be enslaved? And secondly, you stated that there is a "right of revolution" (which I agree with actually), but where is that stated in your philosophy?
They can attempt to amend the Constitution for what ever they like. Whether I like the amendment or not has zero to do with their ability to attempt an amendment.

If society agrees to the point that such an amendment passes, the we Bobs of the world would kill the *******s till one of us ceased to exist, or maybe move to Liberia.

[Bob Riebe]

But it does, in it's own way. The rights of Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happyness (or Property)** can be seen in Commandments 5-10. Those Commandments expressly protect Life and Property, and Liberty is implicit outside effecting someone else's Life or Property.

**these are not actually in the Constitution, but I would say they heavily influenced our founding and our government.



Now days what part of life is the government not involved in? :D

Again, if there are no absolute rights, if they are all based on what a government tells you you have the right to do, then the government can very easily take those rights away. And under this philosophy of government given rights the individual would not have any reason to protest a perceved injustice, because what standard do you measure justice against at that point.These are not rights, these are God's COMMANDS. Failure to obey, gave God the right to send you to hell, as the one deliberately disobeying was not exercising a right, he was deliberately disobeying a basic command.
If you are going to try to call these the basis for some rights; tell me what happened when Moses came off of the mountain with the first set of Commandments.

I see no where in the U.S. Bill of Rights where failure to accept them causes instant death.

[chuck34]

They can attempt to amend the Constitution for what ever they like. Whether I like the amendment or not has zero to do with their ability to attempt an amendment.

If society agrees to the point that such an amendment passes, the we Bobs of the world would kill the *******s till one of us ceased to exist, or maybe move to Liberia.

But according to you whatever the government decides is just fine and dandy. They took away your right to life. Therefore you no longer have the right to defend yourself. By what right do you find justice in killing the ****'s?

[chuck34]

These are not rights, these are God's COMMANDS. Failure to obey, gave God the right to send you to hell, as the one deliberately disobeying was not exercising a right, he was deliberately disobeying a basic command.
If you are going to try to call these the basis for some rights; tell me what happened when Moses came off of the mountain with the first set of Commandments.

I see no where in the U.S. Bill of Rights where failure to accept them causes instant death.

So God telling man A to respect man B's right to life, by not murdering him, is not God defining man's rights?

[Knock-on]

So God telling man A to respect man B's right to life, by not murdering him, is not God defining man's rights?

This is what I don't understand. You say that your God says you shouldn't Murder yet as a Nation you defend the taking of life at the drop of a hat whether it's in Iraq, Afghanistan, Death Row or shooting some punk kid because he 'might' have mugged you.

Or are your Gods laws only sacrosanct when it's convenient?

[Mark]

That's not specific to the USA. Thats been the case in most human society since the beginning of time!

[Bob Riebe]

But according to you whatever the government decides is just fine and dandy. They took away your right to life. Therefore you no longer have the right to defend yourself. By what right do you find justice in killing the ****'s?

My justice, my way.

Justice and lwas are not always the same thing.

Just as the Colonies did with the British.

They had what ever rights British Citizens had, but prefered to create their own sets of rights.

[Bob Riebe]

So God telling man A to respect man B's right to life, by not murdering him, is not God defining man's rights?
The man has no right to life; the man lives under the authority that says for one to murder his is an evil act punishable by death.

If the man acts in a manner that one finds threatening, under God's law, one has the right to terminate the life of the offender. (As I said earlier, if the offending man breaks in at night, one can kill him and do the happy dance without having sinned.)
Would you call that the right to kill?

[Bob Riebe]

This is what I don't understand. You say that your God says you shouldn't Murder yet as a Nation you defend the taking of life at the drop of a hat whether it's in Iraq, Afghanistan, Death Row or shooting some punk kid because he 'might' have mugged you.

Or are your Gods laws only sacrosanct when it's convenient?
God said do not commit murder, he did not say do not kill.

God says that killing is fine under many circumstances.
When Abrahams outpost was raided, God said go out and kill them and get your property back, just do not take anything of theirs as your own.

[chuck34]

My justice, my way.

Justice and lwas are not always the same thing.

Just as the Colonies did with the British.

They had what ever rights British Citizens had, but prefered to create their own sets of rights.

That is absolutly false. The Founders from the beginning were clear that they were mearly exerting their rights as British subjects. They felt that the Crown had violated their rights. They sent petitions to Parliment stating thus. Those petitions were ignored, or worse, so they exercised their right of revolution granted to them by "the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God"

[chuck34]

The man has no right to life; the man lives under the authority that says for one to murder his is an evil act punishable by death.

If the man acts in a manner that one finds threatening, under God's law, one has the right to terminate the life of the offender. (As I said earlier, if the offending man breaks in at night, one can kill him and do the happy dance without having sinned.)
Would you call that the right to kill?

If a man kills another who is threatening them they are simply protecting their own right to Life. How is that hard to understand?

I don't know who said it, but I've heard "The Constitution is not a suicide pact". Well neither is the right to Life.

[Bob Riebe]

If a man kills another who is threatening them they are simply protecting their own right to Life. How is that hard to understand?

I don't know who said it, but I've heard "The Constitution is not a suicide pact". Well neither is the right to Life.If both are murderers and one kills the other, why does one murderer have the right to life and the other not?

Where is this right written down, other than your philosophical opinion?

God says one can kill a night intruder without know ANYTHING about the intruder's intent.
THAT would then be the right to kill. You cannot have your cake and eat it too.

[Bob Riebe]

That is absolutly false. The Founders from the beginning were clear that they were mearly exerting their rights as British subjects. They felt that the Crown had violated their rights. They sent petitions to Parliment stating thus. Those petitions were ignored, or worse, so they exercised their right of revolution granted to them by "the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God"

Then why does our Bill of Rights differ from the ones written for the subjects of the Crown?

[chuck34]

If both are murderers and one kills the other, why does one murderer have the right to life and the other not?

Where is this right written down, other than your philosophical opinion?

God says one can kill a night intruder without know ANYTHING about the intruder's intent.
THAT would then be the right to kill. You cannot have your cake and eat it too.

The guy that moves to violate another's right to life First is the murderer, the other is only defending himself. Big difference.

Again, your infatuation with things being written down in "law". Does that help you when someone arbitrarily votes to strip you of your rights?

You cannot have your cake and eat it too. You are the one standing behind written law to give you your rights. But when presented with situations where the written law violates your rights, you say you'll just take justice in your own hands. What authority do you derive your justice from, written law, or your own interpretation?

[chuck34]

Then why does our Bill of Rights differ from the ones written for the subjects of the Crown?

Because once the Crown/Parliment forced their hand and required a separation to become necessary, they took steps to try to avoid the necessity from happening in the nation they were founding. This was done by codifying what the government can not do to it's citizens.

[Bob Riebe]

The guy that moves to violate another's right to life First is the murderer, the other is only defending himself. Big difference.Wrong, according to the Bible if both are murderers both can legally be killed. Neither has any 'right' to anything, both voided your supposed "right" when they committed murders.
If you are going to use the Bible as a basis, then either it means what it says, or it is a farce.

Again, your infatuation with things being written down in "law". Does that help you when someone arbitrarily votes to strip you of your rights?

You cannot have your cake and eat it too. You are the one standing behind written law to give you your rights. But when presented with situations where the written law violates your rights, you say you'll just take justice in your own hands. What authority do you derive your justice from, written law, or your own interpretation?
Written law is binding.
There are no unwritten laws, only opinions that change with the wind.
Go into court, which beyond armed revolt, is the ONLY thing we have to have items legally changed, and tell than that you are going to use unwritten laws.
They will, before they throw your case out, or you in jail, tell you there are no unwritten laws, or rights. If it ain't on paper, it ain't ****.


In my area, law enforcement officials once were allowed to use discretion if and how to apply laws, if one broke a law it only mattered if the legal forces one was dealing with decided to enforce the law, or simply use his opinion of what should be done.
Some times the legal authority at hand invented his new law to deal with matters. That was actually illegal if taken to court but the offender being dealth with prefered the law of the moment to going to court.
All got along well, and people were rarely hand-cuffed and hauled off, even after violent fisticuffs.

Nowadays the law of the land, as written down is near ALWAYS used, as it is THE LAW and has LEGAL AUTHORITY to back it up.
If one wishes to challenge it one must use other WRITTEN LAWS to prove their interpretation was wrong.
Philosophical feely goods beliefs ain't worth ****.

[chuck34]

Written law is binding.
There are no unwritten laws, only opinions that change with the wind.
Go into court, which beyond armed revolt, is the ONLY thing we have to have items legally changed, and tell than that you are going to use unwritten laws.
They will, before they throw your case out, or you in jail, tell you there are no unwritten laws, or rights. If it ain't on paper, it ain't ****.


In my area, law enforcement officials once were allowed to use discretion if and how to apply laws, if one broke a law it only mattered if the legal forces one was dealing with decided to enforce the law, or simply use his opinion of what should be done.
Some times the legal authority at hand invented his new law to deal with matters. That was actually illegal if taken to court but the offender being dealth with prefered the law of the moment to going to court.
All got along well, and people were rarely hand-cuffed and hauled off, even after violent fisticuffs.

Nowadays the law of the land, as written down is near ALWAYS used, as it is THE LAW and has LEGAL AUTHORITY to back it up.
If one wishes to challenge it one must use other WRITTEN LAWS to prove their interpretation was wrong.
Philosophical feely goods beliefs ain't worth ****.

What are you on about, written laws change all the time, they are barely worth the paper they are written on. Remember it wasn't that long ago that people in the US could own another human being. How can you put so much faith in the law as written, when it so clearly is flawed?

Basic human rights, the point of this discussion, are constant. You have the right to Life, Liberty, and Property. Any written law that violates those rights is morally wrong, and should be resisted.

Why is it so hard for you to grasp the point that laws are changable, and lots of times those changes are not in your favor. Remember, pretty much everything the Nazi's did was perfectly legal within their laws (yeah sorry, it went there). Does that make what they did right, or moral? Nope, just "legal". Don't think that situation can not happen in the US, it can very easily since we have allowed our government to stray so far from the republican pricipals that this country was founded upon. But that's just a bunch of philosophical junk according to you.

[Bob Riebe]

What are you on about, written laws change all the time, they are barely worth the paper they are written on. Remember it wasn't that long ago that people in the US could own another human being. How can you put so much faith in the law as written, when it so clearly is flawed?

Basic human rights, the point of this discussion, are constant. You have the right to Life, Liberty, and Property. Any written law that violates those rights is morally wrong, and should be resisted.

Why is it so hard for you to grasp the point that laws are changable, and lots of times those changes are not in your favor. Remember, pretty much everything the Nazi's did was perfectly legal within their laws (yeah sorry, it went there). Does that make what they did right, or moral? Nope, just "legal". Don't think that situation can not happen in the US, it can very easily since we have allowed our government to stray so far from the republican pricipals that this country was founded upon. But that's just a bunch of philosophical junk according to you.
Good Lord man, lawyer would chew you up for break-fast and crap you out by lunch time.

Whether you like the laws or not, the WRITTEN laws have the backing of the legal system of the land, period.

Laws change, thank God, but until they do, if you disobey them you are a criminal. Do so is up to the individual and if a Christian, whether the one can stand before God and say-- "I did what I believed was proper."
Here is what the book you supposedly are using for you empty rhetoric says about authority.

Romans 13:1-7 states, ----“Everyone must submit himself to the governing authorities, for there is no authority except that which God has established.--- The authorities that exist have been established by God. Consequently, he who rebels against the authority is rebelling against what God has instituted, and those who do so will bring judgment on themselves. For rulers hold no terror for those who do right,--- but for those who do wrong. ---Do you want to be free from fear of the one in authority? Then do what is right and he will commend you. For he is God's servant to do you good. But if you do wrong, be afraid, for he does not bear the sword for nothing. He is God's servant, an agent of wrath to bring punishment on the wrongdoer. Therefore, it is necessary to submit to the authorities, not only because of possible punishment but also because of conscience. This is also why you pay taxes, for the authorities are God's servants, who give their full time to governing. Give everyone what you owe him: If you owe taxes, pay taxes; if revenue, then revenue; if respect, then respect; if honor, then honor.”


Here is where the law of life and death and the covenant covering it, for man AND beast is written:
Genesis 9
1 So God blessed Noah and his sons, and said to them: “Be fruitful and multiply, and fill the earth.[a] 2 And the fear of you and the dread of you shall be on every beast of the earth, on every bird of the air, on all that move on the earth, and on all the fish of the sea. They are given into your hand. 3 Every moving thing that lives shall be food for you. I have given you all things, even as the green herbs.

4 But you shall not eat flesh with its life, that is, its blood.

5 Surely for your lifeblood I will demand a reckoning; ---from the hand of every beast I will require it,-- and from the hand of man. From the hand of every man’s brother I will require the life of man.

6 “ Whoever sheds man’s blood,
By man his blood shall be shed;
For in the image of God
He made man.

7 And as for you, be fruitful and multiply;
Bring forth abundantly in the earth
And multiply in it.”

8 Then God spoke to Noah and to his sons with him, saying: 9 “And as for Me, behold, I establish My covenant with you and with your descendants after you, 10 and with every living creature that is with you: the birds, the cattle, and every beast of the earth with you, of all that go out of the ark, every beast of the earth.

11 Thus I establish My covenant with you: Never again shall all flesh be cut off by the waters of the flood; never again shall there be a flood to destroy the earth.

You will notice that God's law and covenant is not only with man, but also all creatures of the Earth.

[Bob Riebe]

Oh yes, I obey laws by my standards.

I do not find the Ten Commandments to be optional, but there are a lot of laws, that to me, are bs and treated as such.

[chuck34]

Good Lord man, lawyer would chew you up for break-fast and crap you out by lunch time.

Whether you like the laws or not, the WRITTEN laws have the backing of the legal system of the land, period.

snip



Where the heck did I ever say that if you dis-obeyed the law that you weren't a criminal? You are so far off on a tangent now trying to win your argument that it's getting hard to follow you.

Here's the point. There are rights that are Universal (whether they be from God, Nature, or whatever you like), they are the right to Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happyness (or Property). Any law that violates those basic rights is unjust, wrong, and immoral. Some violations require one to resist forcefully, others not so much. But if I break a law that is trying to strip me of my one of these basic rights, I'm pretty sure I'll be right with God.

Your continued insistance that somehow being written in law makes something right, just, and moral is an argument that I'm pretty sure would be reflected by slaveholders, segregationists, and monsters throughout history.

[chuck34]

Oh yes, I obey laws by my standards.

I do not find the Ten Commandments to be optional, but there are a lot of laws, that to me, are bs and treated as such.

Then why are you insisting that rights only come from the law? This makes NO sence to me. How do you judge if a law is BS or not? And what gives you that right?

[Bob Riebe]

Here's the point. There are rights that are Universal .Prove it!

First it was God given-- you have no proof for that, so I assume now they come from Never Land?

[Bob Riebe]

Then why are you insisting that rights only come from the law? This makes NO sence to me. How do you judge if a law is BS or not? And what gives you that right?Rights only come from written documents, not laws.

[Rollo]

Rights only come from written documents, not laws.

http://www.archives.gov/exhibits/charters/bill_of_rights_transcript.html
Amendment 9
The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.

What rights could be denied, disparaged or retained by the people if as you suggest they didn't already exist before the law was enacted?

[Bob Riebe]

Bill of Rights Transcript Text (http://www.archives.gov/exhibits/charters/bill_of_rights_transcript.html)
Amendment 9
The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.

What rights could be denied, disparaged or retained by the people if as you suggest they didn't already exist before the law was enacted?Probably English law.

[markabilly]

yes

[markabilly]

This is what I don't understand. You say that your God says you shouldn't Murder yet as a Nation you defend the taking of life at the drop of a hat whether it's in Iraq, Afghanistan, Death Row or shooting some punk kid because he 'might' have mugged you.

Or are your Gods laws only sacrosanct when it's convenient?

yes. but only when i be doing the dude

[Malbec]

**these are not actually in the Constitution, but I would say they heavily influenced our founding and our government.

There you go.

Your use of the word influenced indicates that you understand that the bible is the basis of your rights as per the constitution but that they are not taken literally from the bible.



Now days what part of life is the government not involved in? :D

How about your dealings with friends? family? Unless you commit a crime against them the government doesn't get involved. Next time you have an argument with your wife try defining it in terms of your constitutional rights and see how far you get...


Again, if there are no absolute rights, if they are all based on what a government tells you you have the right to do, then the government can very easily take those rights away. And under this philosophy of government given rights the individual would not have any reason to protest a perceved injustice, because what standard do you measure justice against at that point.

There ARE no absolute rights, you're right. Rights are something that are negotiated between society and the government. That is precisely why you have a written constitution to define them....

[Bob Riebe]

Chuck:
Our rights were not created to protect us from society, or bad people in it. Our rights, which can only be legally taken away by an agreement of the people, exist to protect us from OUR GOVERNMENT.
As show by what is happening in the U.S. now. Government for the most, part left alone is inherentyly bad.
Our founding Fathers realized that, and gave us written rights beyond the British originals, to protect us from that fact.

[Mark]

For once I agree with you. We've all seen what happens when an individual is given absolute power.

[markabilly]

For once I agree with you. We've all seen what happens when an individual is given absolute power.

yeah, just look at the moderators around here.....

[chuck34]

There you go.

Your use of the word influenced indicates that you understand that the bible is the basis of your rights as per the constitution but that they are not taken literally from the bible.

I never ment to say that they were taken literally from the bible. Only influenced from there through common law. I thought I was fairly clear on that, perhaps not.


How about your dealings with friends? family? Unless you commit a crime against them the government doesn't get involved. Next time you have an argument with your wife try defining it in terms of your constitutional rights and see how far you get...

That line was a bit of a joke. Was the :D not clear enough?


There ARE no absolute rights, you're right. Rights are something that are negotiated between society and the government. That is precisely why you have a written constitution to define them....

Ah but there are absolute rights, and the Founder's experience was that an unbound government would/could seek to destroy those rights. Therefore they wrote a Constitution with enumerated powers. Some at the time said simply having enumerated powers would not stop the government from going beyond those. So they wrote a Bill of Rights with 12 (yes I said 12, only 10 were ratified) ways in which the government could not act to enfringe upon them.

[chuck34]

Chuck:
Our rights were not created to protect us from society, or bad people in it. Our rights, which can only be legally taken away by an agreement of the people, exist to protect us from OUR GOVERNMENT.
As show by what is happening in the U.S. now. Government for the most, part left alone is inherentyly bad.
Our founding Fathers realized that, and gave us written rights beyond the British originals, to protect us from that fact.

Honestly I think your heart is in the right place. You and I seem to be almost on the same wavelength. But you are missing it by thaat much (in my best Get Smart voice :) )

Go back and read the Constitution and the Bill of Rights. Those documents DO NOT grant anyone any rights what-so-ever. The Constitution and Bill of Rights are charters of negative liberties. They say what the government may not do to us. Those documents do not say one thing about granting rights, as those rights were well established and understood by most.

[Malbec]

Ah but there are absolute rights, and the Founder's experience was that an unbound government would/could seek to destroy those rights. Therefore they wrote a Constitution with enumerated powers. Some at the time said simply having enumerated powers would not stop the government from going beyond those. So they wrote a Bill of Rights with 12 (yes I said 12, only 10 were ratified) ways in which the government could not act to enfringe upon them.

What do you mean when you say absolute? To me that means that they are universal and inviolable and as such an American would give me the same description of what they are entitled to as an Egyptian or Chinese or anyone else on their planet.

Absolute rights would apply to everyone at every time regardless of circumstances. There are no rights that fit this description. Just about every country and society around the world agrees that governments can deny people the right of free movement and even in some cases the right to life if they are found guilty of commiting certain crimes yet I'm sure you'd agree that the right to life is pretty important.

[Mark]

yeah, just look at the moderators around here.....

They are too restrained in the main.

[Eki]

They are too restrained in the main.
They are mainly restrained in Spain.

[chuck34]

What do you mean when you say absolute? To me that means that they are universal and inviolable and as such an American would give me the same description of what they are entitled to as an Egyptian or Chinese or anyone else on their planet.

Absolute rights would apply to everyone at every time regardless of circumstances. There are no rights that fit this description. Just about every country and society around the world agrees that governments can deny people the right of free movement and even in some cases the right to life if they are found guilty of commiting certain crimes yet I'm sure you'd agree that the right to life is pretty important.

Due process of law can revoke certain rights under certain circumstances. This is the "social contract" that gets spoken about so much.

[Malbec]

Due process of law can revoke certain rights under certain circumstances. This is the "social contract" that gets spoken about so much.

If rights can be revoked under any circumstances then clearly they aren't absolute.

I suspect most of the disagreements on this thread are centred around different interpretations of certain terms rather than any real differences!

[Knock-on]

They are too restrained in the main.

In the pursuit of balance then, can I suggest you make me a Moderator :devil:

[Knock-on]

In this clip we see Bob Riebe demonstrating the right to bear arms.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RHdg3yeU2iY&feature=player_embedded

;)

[Bob Riebe]

In this clip we see Bob Riebe demonstrating the right to bear arms.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RHdg3yeU2iY&feature=player_embedded

;) Nope, but knock-on, as the old saying goes, a skunk smells its own scent. http://www.motorsportforums.com/images/icons/icon6.gif

[Bob Riebe]

They are mainly restrained in Spain.You realize that could be a refrain to ordain.

[donKey jote]

I thought it looked more like Wade's mum :arrows: :p