CNN Anchor: ‘Our Rights Do Not Come From God’

You have it wrong.
It is stated as 'their creator', not 'our creator'.
And creator doesn't necessarily mean the God of abraham as practiced by christians.

Each individual can have their own creator.

 

With rights come responsibilities, one of those responsibilities is to not violate others rights. We provide punishment for violating others rights, that does not mean the rights do not exist. We also provide laws for those that cannot discern the natural responsibilities inherent in natural rights such as children or the mentally ill.

- - - Updated - - -

Thier Creator, meaning our Creator, however you want to define that. Same thing except for the nitpicking.

 

The use of the term creator by Jefferson was an admission that at the time, most everyone thought someone or something was in charge of creation and the universe. It was not a particular God. The idea that all mankind shared in a common right to certain things was a revolutionary idea born of Hume, Locke and others. It was not something the church had ever stated. The concept that a human being was worth the same here as there was a monumental step in the history of mankind. But even that leap did not go very far, we accepted slavery, genocide, persecution, indented servitude,unequal rights and a host of other social ills that modern man has realized violated the concept of inalienable rights for all humanity. These ideas did not come from God, they came from men. Men who thought, questioned, criticized, doubted and debated. These qualities were not accepted by the state or the church until the enlightenment which made all the Western Religions a target rather than a partner. Regardless, that was over 200 years ago and serves no useful purpose today other than as a fun exercise in history.

 

I like this one by CNN... opps

[video=youtube;rIDrmYyfWe8]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rIDrmYyfWe8[/video]

 

Even before that, Cicero for instance, and no, we did not accept slavery but tolerated it to build a Union of States, otherwise it would have never happened. Because of their foresight and brilliance, the Constitution created allowed for the changes down the road.

 

That is just an unproven claim.

OK so now you're assuming a just society; but who gets to say it's just? You? John Stuart Mill? America? Take your pick, the point is that people living outside that just society do not enjoy the same set of rights as those living inside it. Inside, people get to keep what they earn. Outside, perhaps the rule of law is "finders keepers." Claiming that people have rights outside your just society is ultimately meaningless. Chris Cuomo understands that.

 

Health care is one of those inalienable rights.

- - - Updated - - -

Our indicates a collective agreement on a creator.
Their creator opens it up to each person(s) individual creator.

I think they chose their words carefully when drafting the document.

 

100% agree, but that's only because that is the consensus of the society in which we live.

Yes, it does! The people in prison do not have the same rights as you! How can anyone argue otherwise? Prison, Saudi Arabia, North Korea... take your pick, these governments have full authority to punish their people for doing stuff you and I freely do on a daily basis, and there are no consequences for the governments, because the people have no rights!

 

Of course, it was intentional. Freedom from oppression was very much on their minds.

- - - Updated - - -

You still miss the point. People in prison have already proven they cannot discern the responsibilities of rights so their rights will be suspended as 'punishment'. Those rights still exist or they could not be suspended.

 

You complained I was nitpicking and now you're agreeing with me.
And their and our is not the same.

 

There's no such thing in reality.

 

I was talking about the nit picking between your and their.

 

OK. I disagree that it's nitpicking. It's an important difference.

 

And if repeated loud and often enough, will engender itself in the heart of the narrative.

As the old joke goes "How do you eat an elephant?"

One bite at a time...

One change here, one twist of a definition there, little by little the liberal/leftist disease spreads.

 

Please, you don't have to be anyone special to see that government is not the sole violator of rights.

On the contrary, I just got through proving it with lefty over there.

The Creator, obviously.

Enjoyment is one thing, possession is another.

On the contrary, recognition of the problem precedes its solution. Absent acknowledgment of unalienable rights, the Founders could not have recognized that the violation of thereof was the problem, and their only option would have been such mindless rebellion as has been overwhelmingly the rule in human history.

Dunno what the hell's so hard about this.

 

You did no such thing bud.

 

That News Anchor is wrong. Our rights come directly from Zues himself!...Well sometimes Budda too.

 

He is technically right.

That being said, even as a deist I appreciate that its codified into our Constitution simply because it prevents any future President or legislator or court from taking them away since they are not the final arbitors. Even if you have to pretend its still very useful to have around.

 

Perhaps you should devote more time understanding what you read than giving knee jerk critiques.
You would have understood the meaning of "government, even in it's simplest form"

 

You sound like a 14 year old who thinks he's clever

 

Well considering that inalienable rights given to us by a creator doesn't stop christians from taking away peoples god given rights...I'm gonna say that that idea isn't really valid.

 

Glad you'd amused but I stated historic facts.

 

Perhaps you should devote more time to understanding what you write.

Which I did. The fact remains there was never a government that had an effective monopoly on the violation of rights of its citizens.

 

LOL The conversation is not about effective monopolies of violations of citizens rights, get a damn clue.

 

Not to quibble but anyone who thinks we tolerated it is kidding themselves. The nation ran on slavery. The largest assets in the nation for over 70 years were slaves. Cotton ruled the nation until slavery ended. Without slavery, we had no economy. In 1790, there were some who thought it abhorrent but those did not create our government. The original 55 signors of the Constitution were fully aware of the need for slavery, they accepted it, they allowed it and most of them owned slaves. It was a blight upon the men of the era but to your point, many knew it was immoral yet they did it anyway. Never forget that it took a Civil War to end it. And it took another 100 years to finally give blacks any power. It is our original sin, we will never rinse it's stench from us. We can still see it's artifacts. The fact that the race of the POTUS is even an issue or topic of discussion means that we have yet to see a human being as a human being, nothing else.