Realities of Rights

[Chip]

"There is only one paramount, foundational right: the right to life. This is a state of being right. This right is unalienable, inviolable and absolute, so that only God, who gives this right, can rightly violate this right of another human being."

I'm curious, Chip, why it's only "human being"s that have any rights. Does not all life come from the same source?

"Rights" is a human-coined concept that presents our awareness of the instrinsic aspect of the nature of our being and interactive existence that we respect or disrespect via our human-to-human behavior toward one another.

Other species may or may not have coined the same term within their realm, though it wouldn't surprise me if some of them have.

As an aside, inter-species "rights" have not shown themselves to exist or be respected. For example, your right to life may not be known by a hungry bear, and though cows have been seen holding signs in front of KFC that read "eat more chicken", Outback remains a very successful steakhouse.

I have observed that we have a tendency to project our concept of rights onto other species that more closely resemble us (chimps) and on species that we relate closely with (dogs and cats).

 

[Dr.Who]

Lately I've been reading here where writers have designated this or that falsely as a "right", and so, with that in mind ...

... Rights have to do with our behavior toward one another.

There is only one paramount, foundational right: the right to life. This is a state of being right. This right is unalienable, inviolable and absolute, so that only God, who gives this right, can rightly violate this right of another human being.

From the paramount foundational right to life, there emanates the singular secondary right as a result: the right to physical and psychological security of person. This is an existential right. This right is inviolable except when one is in the act of violating this or the foundational right of another.

From the paramount foundational right to life with respect to the singular secondary right of security of person, there emanates the singular tertiary right as a result: the right to freedom of action. This is an activity right. This right is situationally relative and may be abridged, limited or revoked for justified circumstances either personally or collectively.

These are the only three classes of rights that exist. There are no more classes of rights than these.

Behaviors may be reasonably and customarily classified as belonging to one of these three classes of rights, thus making the behavior a "right".

For example, the right of the behavior of self-defense is reasonably and customarily classified under the right of security of person, and that makes the behavior of self-defense a right.

If a person unjustifiably attacks you, threatening your life, you have the right of self-defense to deflect the attack. If the attack is truly life threatening and the attacker is killed in the process, the defender is not liable for violating the attacker's right to life because the attacker was both 1) in the process of violating the defender's foundational right and 2) the defender was executing his secondary level right.

When rights conflict then appeal is thus made to the level of rights involved. In the preceding example, the attacker had no right to make the life-threatening attack and the defender had every right to defend the threat against his life with equal force if necessary. Thus the decision goes to the defender, and the attacker's right of security of person is suspended during the attack and the attacker's appeal to the tertiary right of "freedom of action" is trumped by the defender's appeal to the overriding secondary right of security of person.

Behaviors classified as activity rights present a challenge for resolution when rights are in conflict.

The general rule of resolution is that the foundational right overrides the secondary right which overrides the tertiary right.

For example, a person wants to own a nuclear bomb. The person claims that owning a nuclear bomb is his freedom of action right. However, that freedom of action is not reasonable and customary, so such is not a right. So whether or not the person will be privileged to own a nuke will depend on the government.

However, in another example, a person wishes to own a gun for protection. The person claims that owning a gun is his freedom of action right. Such a behavior is also reasonable and customary, so indeed, owning a gun is a right.

However, freedom of action rights are, by nature, situationally relative, and may be abridged, limited or revoked for justified circumstances, either personally or collectively.

So although gun ownership is a right, the right may be revoked, for example, if the person is justifiably considered a threat to the right of security of person of another individual or people in general. Justifiably deprived of his right to own a gun, that person must find another way to insure his security of person.

Resolution between two conflicting freedom of action rights becomes more complicated.

For example, it is reasonable and customary to allow the right of property owners to build on their land and it is reasonable and customary to allow people the right to drive their cars on the roads.

But if the roads are congested beyond acceptable function, governments may deny property owner "developers" the right to build homes and business buildings on their property and sell them, as such would create additional cars on the road and contribute to the revoking of the right to drive one's car freely without constriction on the road.

Ultimately, however, rights in conflict involving freedom of action rights are resolved by appealing backwards to the secondary and foundational rights which always trump freedom of action rights.

So, for example, though we have freedom of action, if a crime is committed, the criminal may have his freedom of action rights abridged via a stay in the pokey. However, during his stay in prison it is a violation of his right of security of person to be subjected to "beatings" of various natures at Bubba's whim.

All situational abrogation of rights follows this hierarchical appeal to the three classifications of rights.

These are the realities of rights.

Thank you for the discussion of rights.

I do not think that our founding fathers made much of a distinction between the three different kinds of rights though. As our constitution was written all three of them remained as rights of the individual and could not be limited by the state for any but the most important of reasons. The "rights" of the state however were very limited and specifically enumerated (listed) so that there was no confusion about what the state could do (things on the list) and what it could not do (everything else). This should have made the liberals very happy since they were free to have as much of their liberty as they could with few exceptions.

Today things have gone horribly awry. The state has great and expansive powers. The individual has far fewer rights. We debate which rights should be limited. The liberals want the rights to property to be limited and the conservatives want the rights to self-determination in social areas to be limited. But in reality the constitution as written did not allow for either of these rights to be limited any where near as much as they are today.

Let's give the liberals their rights back so they can do whatever they want in the privacy of their bedrooms and other relationships and let's give the conservatives their rights back so they can keep what they have worked hard to earn with the fruit of their own hands.

 

[Dr.Who]

That link says 124 were exonerated from death row since 1976. The number of executions since 1976 are 1135. (http://www.deathpenaltyinfo.org/number-executions-state-and-region-1976 )

The ratio of exonerated to the total number of executions is 11%. That is a surprising percentage of rectifications of miscarriages of justice. If people really believe that God micromanages the justice system, then you probably have an easy time understanding that He indeed works in strange ways.

A high number of real errors should give one cause for pause. I personally am not in favor of the death penalty as instituted by men. We are too imperfect.

I also do not think that God micromanages the justice system of men. Though if He did, I see no reason to think that the man on death row who is guilty of many capital crimes things save for the thing that sent him there has much of a cause for complaint with God if he gets executed.

The stat of 11% begs the question how many of the men were actually guilty of the crime for which they were sent away regardless of whether or not they were released for some miscarriage of justice. And also how many of the men (and women) executed were actually innocent regardless of what the courts said. The owl says: world may never know.

 

[Dr.Who]

Jeremiah 10:2-5, cutting and trimming a tree in the house was a pagan custom long before the time of Jesus, Jeremiah is thought to be circa 627-560 BC. The Hebrew word "hebel" is used in reference to this custom, it means "vain" or "vanity" and "worthless". "Thus saith the Lord, Learn not the way of the heathen..."

That is partially correct.

The pagan custom spoken of in Jeremiah was to cut down a tree, carve it into the shape of an idol, and gold plate it. Which is why Jeremiah talks about the tree not being able to talk; no matter what animal one made the totem look like it would still not be alive.

In contrast, the wreathes used at christmas have some beginning with later pagans who recognized that pine trees did not get brown in the winter so they symbolized a sleeping life and made it a circle to symbolize the cycle of life. Christians of that time usurped the symbol and displanted it as they did with the winter solstice in general. It was not an adoption of pagan ways but an intentional corruption of them so they could be replaced with better customs.

The Christmas tree in particular does not look at all like either a totem or an idol, or a wreath. Christians do not worship it, and in modern times it is based on a statement by Martin Luthor that a tree covered in snow was very pretty and reminded him of the stars. There were many other origins too though if they never caught on and were not the inspiration for modern christians who cares.

 

[Mr. Shaman]

Let's give the liberals their rights back so they can do whatever they want in the privacy of their bedrooms and other relationships and let's give the conservatives their rights back so they can keep what they have worked hard to earn with the fruit of their own hands.

You mean, like....allowing conservatives to pursue whatever agenda (they choose) in airport-restrooms?

I'm trying to be as unbiased as you.

 

[BigRob]

You mean, like....allowing conservatives to pursue whatever agenda (they choose) in airport-restrooms?

I'm trying to be as unbiased as you.

Shaman, I thought you dealt in a world free of suppositions? Were you in the restroom with Senator Craig, or are you making another supposition here?

 

[Mare Tranquillity]

That is partially correct.

The pagan custom spoken of in Jeremiah was to cut down a tree, carve it into the shape of an idol, and gold plate it. Which is why Jeremiah talks about the tree not being able to talk; no matter what animal one made the totem look like it would still not be alive.

In contrast, the wreathes used at christmas have some beginning with later pagans who recognized that pine trees did not get brown in the winter so they symbolized a sleeping life and made it a circle to symbolize the cycle of life. Christians of that time usurped the symbol and displanted it as they did with the winter solstice in general. It was not an adoption of pagan ways but an intentional corruption of them so they could be replaced with better customs.

The Christmas tree in particular does not look at all like either a totem or an idol, or a wreath. Christians do not worship it, and in modern times it is based on a statement by Martin Luthor that a tree covered in snow was very pretty and reminded him of the stars. There were many other origins too though if they never caught on and were not the inspiration for modern christians who cares.

This is a good example of the problem with calling something the Word of God. There are thousands of Christian sects and none of them agree with each other on the interpretation of God's Word (the operative word here being "interpretation"). Translating a text thousands of years old from one language and cultural milieu, and then translating that translation to another language and cultural milieu, over and over, while having councils where people vote on which parts are to be included in "God's Word" produces what we currently have: a book riddled with inconsistencies, contradictions, violence, sadism, cruelty, stupidity, history, fallacy, myth, revisions for convenience, some beautiful passages, and some good ideas. The Bible is many things, but it's no more the word of God than any other holy book like the Koran, 'Gita, or the Book of Hopi.

 

[Mare Tranquillity]

Somebody gave me a "red" or a "green" for my post #12 on this thread, but they didn't say anything but, "um, right". I'm color blind, I have no idea whether the little box is red or green so if you want to insult me you really need to say so or I'll just assume all the boxes I get are "greens". Thanx.

 

[Andy]

As an aside, inter-species "rights" have not shown themselves to exist or be respected. For example, your right to life may not be known by a hungry bear, and though cows have been seen holding signs in front of KFC that read "eat more chicken", Outback remains a very successful steakhouse.

Did you mean Chick-fil-a?

Which is a Christian organization btw, and isn't open on Sundays.

 

[Andy]

This is a good example of the problem with calling something the Word of God. There are thousands of Christian sects and none of them agree with each other on the interpretation of God's Word (the operative word here being "interpretation"). Translating a text thousands of years old from one language and cultural milieu, and then translating that translation to another language and cultural milieu, over and over, while having councils where people vote on which parts are to be included in "God's Word" produces what we currently have: a book riddled with inconsistencies, contradictions, violence, sadism, cruelty, stupidity, history, fallacy, myth, revisions for convenience, some beautiful passages, and some good ideas. The Bible is many things, but it's no more the word of God than any other holy book like the Koran, 'Gita, or the Book of Hopi.

I do not see the things you claim in the book. Nor have I found that a specific book in one area differs in any meaningful way from one found at another.

For example, I can look out the german bible and compare it to the english. It's the same. I can look at the latin bible, and compare it to the greek. It's the same. I can look at the Hebrew bible, and although they reject the NT, the OT is the same.

Are there some wayward sects that have occultist views and dogma different than the biblical view? Absolutely. But the text is the same, it's simply the sinful people rejecting, or interjecting on biblical truth.

So you go find some random off shoot of Christian belief, that doesn't follow what the Bible says, and claim they represent a change in the book?

All democrats support the war. I know this because Joe Liberman does. Liberman is a democrat. Therefore all democrats support the war. Do you see the logical fallacy you are trying to apply to Christian belief?

 

[Hobo1]

Come on, Andy, do a simple Google search on the "inconsistencies in the Bible" and you will find many very specific clauses.. Here's one example:

MT 16:18 Jesus founds his church on Peter and will give him the keys of the kingdom.
MT 16:23 Jesus calls Peter [a] "Satan" and "a hindrance," and accuses him of being on the side of men rather than that of God.

It's been a while since I last researched the origins of the Bible, but if I recall correctly the Bible of the year 2008 was not even officially compiled until about the year 1000 AD. Along the line many books (ie, chapters) were completely rejected, including one Gospel supposedly written by Judas. Other words and phrases were added and subtracted because the words did not suit the people who were doing the translation from old Hebrew.

I believe the religious books written in antiquity are sources of information that a thinking person can to come to know God. Few people, including atheists, would disagree that the moral philosophy espoused by Jesus is not an excellent moral code to live by. However, someone can come to know a "Higher Power" - I use this term to make a clear distinction between the Christian understanding of God, and a personal understanding of "God". A person can know their Higher Power by studying numerous sources of religious and moral philosophy. Of course, a personal revelation or other events in one's life can strengthen their belief system.

To rely on one specific source such as the Bible for your entire understanding of what God means in your life is risky. Many people have had their faith shaken if not shattered when they discover the Bible alone is insufficient to guide their life through traumatic life experiences.

 

[Andy]

Come on, Andy, do a simple Google search on the "inconsistencies in the Bible" and you will find many very specific clauses.. Here's one example:

I've been sent massive lists of inconsistencies at various times in the past 10 years. Every time, they end up being very lame. If you wish to start a thread on that, great. But be prepared to have them all shot down. There is no real inconsistency in the Bible. If there is, it hasn't turned up in the roughly 300 or so I've bothered to look up for those making the claim.

This view of MT 16:18, 23 is very weak. By simply reading the passage, it's clear 18 was a future tense, and 23 was present tense.

It's been a while since I last researched the origins of the Bible, but if I recall correctly the Bible of the year 2008 was not even officially compiled until about the year 1000 AD. Along the line many books (ie, chapters) were completely rejected, including one Gospel supposedly written by Judas. Other words and phrases were added and subtracted because the words did not suit the people who were doing the translation from old Hebrew.

The Bible is a collection of books. Each book was considered inspired separately. The compiling of all the canonical books into one uniform book may not have happened till a later date, (1000 AD is a bit off), but their view in the early church, as works inspired by G-d goes back much farther. The supposed gospel of Judas was never canonized, nor considered inspired, ever. In fact we really don't even know who the author is.

I believe the religious books written in antiquity are sources of information that a thinking person can to come to know God. Few people, including atheists, would disagree that the moral philosophy espoused by Jesus is not an excellent moral code to live by. However, someone can come to know a "Higher Power" - I use this term to make a clear distinction between the Christian understanding of God, and a personal understanding of "God". A person can know their Higher Power by studying numerous sources of religious and moral philosophy. Of course, a personal revelation or other events in one's life can strengthen their belief system.

Human beings have an amazing ability to 'invent' god to fit into whatever mold they wish. It's impossible for two people to 'invent' god or a higher power, and both be right, anymore than two people can come up with different answers to 2 + 2 and both be right.

Nor can you study multiple source of completely conflicting material and claim to find any common ground to discover a 'higher power' from.

The idea that one can go down a religious buffet line and take or leave whatever they choose from every view, to come up with some frankenstein belief system... is nothing more than inventing god, similar to the Idols above, where people in the centuries past bowed down to their own imagination.

To rely on one specific source such as the Bible for your entire understanding of what God means in your life is risky. Many people have had their faith shaken if not shattered when they discover the Bible alone is insufficient to guide their life through traumatic life experiences.

The Bible alone is not enough. That's true. What's needed is a personal relationship to the G-d that the Bible speaks of. Until you have that, you have nothing.

What's more risky, is the pretend that you can mixing together a bunch of other belief systems, when only one can be true.

 

[Andy]

Just for amusement, I looked up your Donald Morgan link. It was more of the same shoddy claims I'm used to.

The first is a claim that G-d created light and dark before he created the sun. As if G-d, if he truly is G-d, could not possibly create light before he made the sun. Lame.

The next four deal with his ability to understand Genesis chapter two, goes back to the sixth day of creation and expands on it, not that it changed the order.

Another claims that purification indicates sin, when in fact people who got sick had to purify. Being sick doesn't indicate sin, nor does it ever claim purification automatically indicated sin.

One says G-d was pleased with creation, and then that he was displeased later, failing to note he was pleased with his work the first time, and displeased with man's choices the second.

He claimed it said Adam would die the very day he ate from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, and then lived many years. Dying in this use of the word referred to both spiritual and physical. Death was non-existent in the physical world. Now it was everywhere. The trek to death began that day. Further, the immediate result was spiritual death, in the separation of G-d from sinful man.

Another funny one, was claiming that wanting to know good from evil was a sin, and then that it was immature later to not be able to tell. This is silly. Wanting to know good from evil was never a sin. Eating of the tree was a sin. The only reason the tree was the knowledge of good and evil is because before, they already knew good, and since G-d said to not eat of it, meant if they did, they would know evil. Further, since we have that knowledge now, to not know would be immature.

I could go on... but you get the idea. I can shoot down every single one of these. Most I won't even need to look up.

 

[Hobo1]

I will admit that not all the sites on the internet are objective...whether they talk about the Bible, Koran, or other religious document. To an adamant believer in a religion all criticism is patently wrong - that is the nature of faith in a religion. You must have faith in what the religion teaches you, no questions allowed.

The purpose of all religions should be to lay out a path to find God. The moral philosophy espoused by the belief system espoused by the religion you choose should be a way for you to discover God - kind of stepping stones along the path, if you will. Finding God means living a more contented and meaningful life.

I will agree that no one can simply construct a moral system or find the contentment that God brings by picking and choosing belief systems that simply happen to fit with your current life style and mode of living. That is not finding God, that is using religion to justify all of your actions.

On the other hand, when I read and study a religious book and it was compiled by very fallible humans, often with dubious motives, then I have the obligation to deny this source as reliable. And anyone who reads the Gospels of the New Testament can easily find inconsistencies among the authors who were telling the same story.

I have no serious doubt that a man named Jesus was inspired by God and walked to earth teaching lessons inspired by God. It is probable that a man name Mohammad walked a similar path motivated by God. But that does obligate me to accept every word written in the Bible and the Koran. Many such men probably walked the earth similarly inspired.

It is my philosophy that people of the 21st century can find patterns in religious teachings of the past which can provide collective guidance about how to find God, how God participates in our lives, and what he expects from us.

 

[Dr.Who]

Somebody gave me a "red" or a "green" for my post #12 on this thread, but they didn't say anything but, "um, right". I'm color blind, I have no idea whether the little box is red or green so if you want to insult me you really need to say so or I'll just assume all the boxes I get are "greens". Thanx.

Did not know you were color blind. That was me and it was a green. I don't know for sure if this forum works like others but on others when you get a green or a red your point score goes up or down too. Sorry for the confusion. I said "Um, right" because while I agreed with much of it I could not give a more full hearted endorsement.