Are constitutional rights God given?

[IndianaDean]

I reject that. You cannot prove there is a God, no more than I can prove there isn't.
God is based on faith, not fact or science.

Therefore, rights are only "God given" as far as the people who recognize those rights want to believe they are being inspired by God.

 

[cz75bdneos22]

Wow....

Yeah, baby!! bring it on...putting my thinking cap on...
mbt2001--" a man is not self-existent.. have you ever been in a state of clinical death...I have. i am confused by your statements, but it's good to have uncertainty as it leads you along the path to enlightenment. Now, as it relates to man choosing to be born, i think its called Nature. knowing a little about the life-cycle of living things goes a long way towards understanding this phenomenom. "if nothing existed before", then we are in a whole lot of trouble..you seem confident that you believe in God, i know that you are sincere...many people ascribe to that same belief..you are not alone there...that, IS, your choice. "the rights are God given" well , that works up until you meet those that think otherwise or just don't believe in a God/ your God. i sense your Bias might not allow you to see beyond what it is that you seem to "know". I could be wrong. send me a PM to further discuss, if you so desire...i am a very inquisitive young, dude...
Indianadean-- i like your perspective. feel free to PM for further discussion on this topic...

 

[Don't Tread On Me]

Are constitutional rights God given?

YES.


Rights are God given, nature given, creator given..or whatever floats your boat. Whatever the case, you didn't give them to yourself, nor did anyone else, so you can't forfeit them (by voting for totalitarianism, coercement by force or propaganda) nor can anyone else take them away.


The Constitution merely lists the most fundamental ones that the government ISN'T ALLOWED to touch. That's all it says. It says, these are the people's rights, don't touch them. It doesn't give nor take rights.


Who doesn't allow them to touch? We don't allow them. The Constitution is a social contract between the people who will be citizens and the people who will be government officials. The Constitution outlines how the government will be structured and what it can and cannot do. It's our format for them to follow, because in our system, WE'RE suppose to be in charge, they are suppose to work for us.

When they do evil things, often the built-in checks and balances system should catch it. When the whole system becomes corrupted and evil deeds bypass the checks and balances, then there is a violation of contract, and it's our choice whether or not to enforce the terms of the contract, or render it null and void. This assumes that both sides cannot come to terms.

That's the part where we all take our rifles, march on D.C., and shoot every single thug politician that is breaking the deal and trying to steal our money and enslave us or kill us.

After that bloodbath, we can just consider it enforcement of the contract, or we can just start all over with a new one if we think it needs improvement.


There are few problems with that. Too much time has passed, and as a result, the government thinks it's autonomous. It is completely evident that they have a gang-like attitude and elitist thought process. So instead of us all being one people together, it is more of an us vs. them situation.


Being that the government has broken the contract, and has delcared itself ruler of the people, rather than subservient to the people - to increase its foothold on power, it has established a number of defenses. Like stripping the people of effective arms and estabilishing standing armies. This prevents us from overthrowing them. Overthrowing them is our moral duty as Jefferson said in the Declaration of Independence. They've gained other forms power, such as ejecting the people from the political process by creating a bogus 2 party system that creates the illusion of choice, by establishing control over all the media, and by taking over education. By doing this, they have the population busy quarreling with themselves over meaningless politics, rather than seeking restitution for their grievances. Most people are dumbed down, and never even think of themselves as oppressed because they've been told through government education that they live like kings. Others are impoverished and face a life long financial struggle, which keeps them physically and mentally occupied.


It didn't have to be like that. All of this happened as a result of people not acting in time. Jefferson thought that government should be overthrown once every few decades. He was right. Government destroys itself quickly due to human beings being corrupt or evil (remember, all the evil ones tend to gravitate towards things like government, because it offers them a position of power) It's our job to keep them in check. We gave that up. So we're stuck now, and all we can do is whine on the internet about it.


Well, that's how it all works, or doesn't work depending on your point of view.

 

[Walt Sherrill]

The generally-accepted definition of a right is a "power" to do something. For example, the right of self-protection means you are empowered to protect yourself. And, generally, if you do so, you are not attacked or punished.

But, if rights are god-given (or God-given) how do you explain the Right to Freedom of Religion, something implicitly guaranteed by the U.S. Constitution? (While the Constitution doesn't say you're free to worship as you choose, the Founding Fathers certainly believed that to be the case; freedom of religion was one of the basic incentives for their predecessors to come to the New World -- to get away from those who oppressed them for having "unconventional" religious beliefs.)

God apparently doesn't believe in Freedom of Religion -- the holy scripture is full of examples showing that the God of Moses disliked religious freedom; the God of Moses (which is the Muslim, Christian, and Jewish God, says you don't have the right to worship as you chooose: He says, instead, that "thou shalt have no god before me..." and defines all sorts of rules about how you should perform your worship and act out your obedience to Him.

The religious concept of Natural Rights (which is apparently confused with political rights) is subtly different from political rights. But folks here seem to think they are one and the same. I'd argue that a "natural right" is really a definition of what OUGHT to be -- a rule or value -- and not something that "empowers" the person who arguably has been given that right.

Natural rights (if, in fact, they are rights) could be God-given, but they aren't enforced. If you deny someone else a natural right, the sky doesn't part and and a great hand doesn't set things right. Nothing happens -- unless others like you, or government, steps in to redress the loss. (A killer, arguably, can continue to kill until someone in THIS world steps in.)

If there is a God (or gods), he. she, or they may choose to do something about the denial of right, but it apparently doesn't generally happen until the the transgressor's death.

The Rights addressed in the U.S. Constitution are enforced by the power of government and by the tacit or OPEN acceptance of others within the political community.

If government turns its back on a "Constitutional" right, and people don't care and try to enforce that right themselves, then that right no longer exists.

Example: the God of Moses clearly had nothing against slavery and would arguably not have accepted some of the U.S. Constitution. (The God of Moses was so comfortable with Slavery, he even set up rules for the proper treatment of slaves; he didn't say "set them free.")

I don't believe that Rights are God-given. The idea of "rights" may come from God, but people make them happen.

 

[kahr40]

Whether or not you believe that your god gave you those rights ,the government certainly did not.
The Constitution simply recognizes the powers that the government can and cannot implement against it's people.

Where the people's rights come from is irrelevant

Amen. The constitution doesn't give it merely confirms.

 

[RealGun]

The generally-accepted definition of a right is a "power" to do something. For example, the right of self-protection means you are empowered to protect yourself. And, generally, if you do so, you are not attacked or punished.

I would be more inclined to refer to a right as an entitlement rather than a power. To say that a right is "God-given" really says that no mortal can claim any justification for denying the freedom to exercise it. However, society is free to democratically propose that exercise of certain rights should and will be curtailed in certain circumstances. That will never mean that the right doesn't exist. It will mean that exercise of rights is ultimately controlled by a society's covenants. The jurisdiction of such covenants is within national and lesser legislative boundaries unless by international treaty. Rights in which one may indulge are then ultimately defined by defining a society. Thus, US citizens may keep and bear arms, but citizens of most other major world powers may not. To say that RKBA is "God-given" is goofy. It is a right for which one must fight to maintain.

 

[Live Free Or Die]

Are the rights outlines in the Bill of Rights granted to us by God?

I gave up reading through this thread when it started getting ugly (predictably, that didn't take long given the topic). So forgive me if my post is redundant:

If the answer to the quoted question is "yes," then prove it!

 

[The Real Hawkeye]

YES.


Rights are God given, nature given, creator given..or whatever floats your boat. Whatever the case, you didn't give them to yourself, nor did anyone else, so you can't forfeit them (by voting for totalitarianism, coercement by force or propaganda) nor can anyone else take them away.


The Constitution merely lists the most fundamental ones that the government ISN'T ALLOWED to touch. That's all it says. It says, these are the people's rights, don't touch them. It doesn't give nor take rights.


Who doesn't allow them to touch? We don't allow them. The Constitution is a social contract between the people who will be citizens and the people who will be government officials. The Constitution outlines how the government will be structured and what it can and cannot do. It's our format for them to follow, because in our system, WE'RE suppose to be in charge, they are suppose to work for us.

When they do evil things, often the built-in checks and balances system should catch it. When the whole system becomes corrupted and evil deeds bypass the checks and balances, then there is a violation of contract, and it's our choice whether or not to enforce the terms of the contract, or render it null and void. This assumes that both sides cannot come to terms.

That's the part where we all take our rifles, march on D.C., and shoot every single thug politician that is breaking the deal and trying to steal our money and enslave us or kill us.

After that bloodbath, we can just consider it enforcement of the contract, or we can just start all over with a new one if we think it needs improvement.


There are few problems with that. Too much time has passed, and as a result, the government thinks it's autonomous. It is completely evident that they have a gang-like attitude and elitist thought process. So instead of us all being one people together, it is more of an us vs. them situation.


Being that the government has broken the contract, and has delcared itself ruler of the people, rather than subservient to the people - to increase its foothold on power, it has established a number of defenses. Like stripping the people of effective arms and estabilishing standing armies. This prevents us from overthrowing them. Overthrowing them is our moral duty as Jefferson said in the Declaration of Independence. They've gained other forms power, such as ejecting the people from the political process by creating a bogus 2 party system that creates the illusion of choice, by establishing control over all the media, and by taking over education. By doing this, they have the population busy quarreling with themselves over meaningless politics, rather than seeking restitution for their grievances. Most people are dumbed down, and never even think of themselves as oppressed because they've been told through government education that they live like kings. Others are impoverished and face a life long financial struggle, which keeps them physically and mentally occupied.


It didn't have to be like that. All of this happened as a result of people not acting in time. Jefferson thought that government should be overthrown once every few decades. He was right. Government destroys itself quickly due to human beings being corrupt or evil (remember, all the evil ones tend to gravitate towards things like government, because it offers them a position of power) It's our job to keep them in check. We gave that up. So we're stuck now, and all we can do is whine on the internet about it.


Well, that's how it all works, or doesn't work depending on your point of view.

+1. It is rare when I can say that I agree with every word someone has said in such a long post, but this is one of those situations. Well said.

 

[The Real Hawkeye]

The generally-accepted definition of a right is a "power" to do something. For example, the right of self-protection means you are empowered to protect yourself. And, generally, if you do so, you are not attacked or punished.

Unfortunately, Walt always begins his analysis of this subject with a false premise, and then builds a huge construct of an argument on this faulty foundation. Just touch the cornerstone with a little reality, and his entire house of cards comes crashing down around his ankles.

Here's his false premise: It is that rights are the same as legal empowerment. This is false. Legal empowerment is what government says you can do. Rights, on the other hand, remain unchanged regardless of the law or the government.

In a just society, the government will make laws consistent with your rights, while in an unjust society, the laws will constitute violations of your rights, which then ought to prompt the good citizen to either alter or abolish the law by whatever means are available (See, e.g., The Declaration of Independence).

By the way, the situation in which the laws are consistent with your rights is termed political liberty, while the situation in which the laws violate your rights is called tyranny. When the Founders referred to their liberties, they simply meant the legal empowerment to do what it is your right to do. A little civics lesson for you, there. No charge.

 

[GRB]

Here is how I figure it, our right to keep and bear arms was given to us by ourselves and remains a right because of ourselves (gun owning and rights Americans in general throughout history). Had God given us these rights then everyone would have been armed with whatever gun met there fancy since day one of mankind. God did not write the US Constitution, although if there is a God, then God may have certainly been our creator in the scheme of things and then would have been indirectly responsible for those rights. To be quite frank, I think it was a rather unanswerable question (despite the fact that you received lots of answers) because if God gave us our right to keep and bear arms then God also gave us all of our other rights such as the right for a woman to have an abortion. If you believe in a righteous and just God, or even a merciful one, do you find it a little absurd now to think God directly by some form of divine intervention gives us both of these rights and all of our other rights? Or is it that if you believe God granted us our rights and, that you only believe such when the right is one with which you agree? Or do you believe there is no God and the right was given to man by other men? If so then what authority makes it a right? If it is a right for us, why not for all men? Is it really a right at all? Some believe in one God, others in many, some in none - never once have I heard of a God who told anyone to use a gun (and no a gun is not a sword nor does it equate to a sword as evidenced by the fact that swords are for the most part rather obsolete in modern warfare). Never once have I heard God discuss a gun (never saw mention of it when I read different holy books). Yet I have a right to keep and bear arms and I do so. I think what matters most regarding this right is how I do what the right allows; and how I intend to assure that this right remains a right for my children and theirs.

Please note, I was very careful not to state my belief as to the being of God, whether or not God granted us our rights or, whether or not something like abortion is a right or if it is right. I have fairly strong beliefs on all of these subjects, and no matter what side of the God debate you take - you would probably be surprised to hear exactly what they are. Instead of discussion my beliefs, ponder the questions I just posed and do so sincerely. They are intriguing and very complex, certainly answers to them should require a lot of thought and comprehension - maybe of things we were never meant to or simply incapable of understanding. The original question is like any other question we ask about God; not answerable with any certainty by man because we will never be all knowing like the God in which we profess to believe or disbelieve. We are quite presumptive to believe that God meant for us to know any answers with absolute certainty and/or; we are quite presumptive to believe we are smart enough to know the answers in the absence of a God. As it is, we have the right, let's enjoy it while we do, let's fight to keep it, let's use it responsibly whether or not it is God given or given to us by men because whoever gave it to us probably gave it to us for a very good reason.

 

[The Real Hawkeye]

Thus, US citizens may keep and bear arms, but citizens of most other major world powers may not. To say that RKBA is "God-given" is goofy. It is a right for which one must fight to maintain.

Though Realgun's reasoning powers are not entirely faulty, he occasionally makes fundamental mistakes when discussing this topic. Like Walt, Realgun confuses rights with what the government says one can do. We do not fight to maintain rights. Those remain with us whether we fight or not. We are born with them, and cannot add (or remove) a single one to (or from) ourselves. We fight, if at all, so as to retain, or re-acquire, our liberties, i.e., the legal authorization to act in accordance with our rights. The distinction between rights and liberties is central to understanding the philosophical underpinnings of our entire system of government.

 

[BFWE]

Going to the Source

Have not read the entire string... so please forgive me if I restate someone else.

A couple of quotes will illistrate my point:

"We have staked the whole of all our political institutions upon the capacity of mankind for self-government, upon the capacity of each and all of us to govern ourselves, to control ourselves, to stustain ourselves accounding to the Ten Commandments of God." -- James Madison

"It cannot be emphasized too strongly or too often that this great nation was founded not by religionists but by Christians, not on religions but on the Gospel of Jesus Christ." -- Patrick Henery

There are numerous other quotes that could accompany these. It is clear, at least to me, exactly what our Founding Fathers thought about the underpinnings of our country as well as their faith.

The were not Diests, despite what modern popular propaganda says, so please don't confuse religion and Christianity. Religion says you have to do something. Christianity is about Jesus Christ having done all that is neccessary and we only have to accept this on a person basis. This is what the Founding Fathers knew, accepted and put into practice within a political arena to spread -- hopefully -- to the rest of the world.

 

[RealGun]

Though Realgun's reasoning powers are not entirely faulty, he occasionally makes fundamental mistakes when discussing this topic. Like Walt, Realgun confuses rights with what the government says one can do. We do not fight to maintain rights. Those remain with us whether we fight or not. We are born with them, and cannot add (or remove) a single one to (or from) ourselves. We fight, if at all, so as to retain, or re-acquire, our liberties, i.e., the legal authorization to act in accordance with our rights. The distinction between rights and liberties is central to understanding the philosophical underpinnings of our entire system of government.

I don't think it is very persuasive to simply be dogmatic.

 

[The Real Hawkeye]

I don't think it is very persuasive to simply be dogmatic.

Words have meaning, my friend. If that's dogmatism to you, then so be it.

 

[RealGun]

Some things referred to as rights are perhaps more accurately "reserved privileges". Some you cannot well argue were inherent in ones being. They exist because there was agreement that they exist, were important to citizenship and the concept of the U.S., would be protected, and would not rightfully be infringed by the federal government, later the States via the 14th Amendment.

 

[RealGun]

Words have meaning, my friend. If that's dogmatism to you, then so be it.

It is difficult to entirely avoid, carefully qualifying everything as an opinion or humble understanding, but routinely instructing people, having no known credentials and no references, is to be dogmatic, a severe fault in writing style and not to be taken seriously.

If you would like to express an opinion, that's fine, but to pretend to be the authority, accepting or dismissing what others write, is just not credible and is an embarassment to the rest of the group.

 

[The Real Hawkeye]

Some things referred to as rights are perhaps more accurately "reserved privileges". Some you cannot well argue were inherent in ones being. They exist because there was agreement that they exist, were important to citizenship and the concept of the U.S., would be protected, and would not rightfully be infringed by the federal government, later the States via the 14th Amendment.

There is nothing wrong with the word "privilege." You should use it when appropriate. Leave the word "right" alone, however, unless that's what you actually mean. Nothing is improved by watering down the meaning of words, especially a word so central to our nation's founding principles and our continued liberty.

 

[Marko Kloos]

The were not Diests, despite what modern popular propaganda says, so please don't confuse religion and Christianity. Religion says you have to do something. Christianity is about Jesus Christ having done all that is neccessary and we only have to accept this on a person basis. This is what the Founding Fathers knew, accepted and put into practice within a political arena to spread -- hopefully -- to the rest of the world.

There is a difference between the personal faith of the Founding Fathers, and how they intended for that faith to play a role in the government of this country. From the way the Bill of Rights is written, specifically the First Amendment, it's clear that they did not want government to be in the business of spreading any sort of religious doctrine. To them, religion was a private and personal thing, and not in the scope of government to either hinder or promote.

As for God-given rights...I think the Bill of Rights recognizes human rights in a way that cannot be found in the Bible. The previous example of religious freedom recognized by the First Amendment is a good one...if you think that the BoR is a list of rights given to us by God, you have to consolidate that statement with the information found in the Bible, which is in many cases clearly contradictory to what the Bill of Rights says.

The First Amendment and the First Commandment are the best example of how the Bible and the Bill of Rights are at odds. Which is it, freedom of religion, or "Thou shalt have no other gods but me"? Unless you parse "freedom of religion" as "freedom to be Christian", those two statements are completely at odds with each other, which means that either the God of the Bible had nothing to do with granting any of the rights in the BoR, or He had a change of heart when it comes to the "having no other gods" thing.

 

[The Real Hawkeye]

It is difficult to entirely avoid, carefully qualifying everything as an opinion or humble understanding, but routinely instructing people, having no known credentials and no references, is to be dogmatic, a severe fault in writing style and not to be taken seriously.

If you would like to express an opinion, that's fine, but to pretend to be the authority, accepting or dismissing what others write, is just not credible and is an embarassment to the rest of the group.

Please tell us, Realgun, what the difference is, as you see it, between a right and a liberty.

 

[RealGun]

Please tell us, Realgun, what the difference is, as you see it, between a right and a liberty.

Rather than give out assignments as a diversion, why don't you provide the definitions as you see them.

 

[DRZinn]

Had God given us these rights then everyone would have been armed with whatever gun met there fancy since day one of mankind.

That's ridiculous. The right to "keep and bear" something doesn't mean it will be provided, but that it won't be prevented (or rather, that when it is prevented, that is a violation).

if God gave us our right to keep and bear arms then God also gave us all of our other rights such as the right for a woman to have an abortion.

That comes down to whether or not women have a right to an abortion. If they do, and you believe that rights come from God, then yes, God gave them that right. (Not to get off-topic, but the abortion issue depends on whether or not it's murder. If it isn't, they have the right. If it is, they don't. The real argument is whether or not it's murder.)

nor does it equate to a sword as evidenced by the fact that swords are for the most part rather obsolete in modern warfare). Never once have I heard God discuss a gun (never saw mention of it when I read different holy books).

Of course it equates to a sword. When the Bible, the Koran, the Torah and who knows what else were written, guns didn't exist, so of course they aren't mentioned. (Are you playing dumb here?) But the sword was a weapon that anyone could carry on their person. Just like a handgun or rifle.

 

[The Real Hawkeye]

Rather than give out assignments as a diversion, why don't you provide the definitions as you see them.

As I see them, and as the Founders saw them, a liberty is what one is able to do without legal impediment, and a right is what one ought to be able to do without legal impediment.

 

[The Real Hawkeye]

Of course it equates to a sword. When the Bible, the Koran, the Torah and who knows what else were written, guns didn't exist, so of course they aren't mentioned. (Are you playing dumb here?) But the sword was a weapon that anyone could carry on their person. Just like a handgun or rifle.

No, Doc, he's not playing. He's dead serious. Just read this thread from the beginning to see what I mean.

 

[dangit]

hawkeye,

Having just read the entire thread, I wanted to congratulate you on your understanding of our basic founding philosophy. I wish more people had your grasp of the concepts.

I also wanted to add that I'm in awe of your patience as regards to other commentors in this thread. Just reading it made me want to pull my hair out.

To others who have not read this thread in it's entirety: read it. Read all of it. The founding principles of our nation in 9 easy pages. Hawkeye has laid it out for you on a platter.

 

[The Real Hawkeye]

Having just read the entire thread, I wanted to congratulate you on your understanding of our basic founding philosophy. I wish more people had your grasp of the concepts.

I also wanted to add that I'm in awe of your patience as regards to other commentors in this thread. Just reading it made me want to pull my hair out.

To others who have not read this thread in it's entirety: read it. Read all of it. The founding principles of our nation in 9 easy pages. Hawkeye has laid it out for you on a platter.

Thanks, dangit. That is very gracious of you.