What Human Rights?

[Thumpalumpacus]

What you are basically saying is that force and compulsion are the highest authorities. Most of you seem to incapable of making the distinction between human rights and civil rights. For example, trial by jury is a civil right, the benefit of being a citizen of a specific state. Human rights transcend one's status as a citizen. That is why they are called human rights. So if you think that rights are a human construct then you do not actually believe in human rights. The logical consequence of this is the rationalization to take away another's liberty by force for no reason at all. You are laying the foundation for tyranny.

No, reality lays the foundation for tyranny, because there is no such thing as inalienable rights. Not even your god gives humans the right to life, the right to free speech, or any other "inalienable" right you wish to discuss. All rights are subject to forfeiture given a certain set of circumstances. Your own Bible documents countless examples of the abrogation of rights being approved by your deity, and that means that while you're sitting here and arguing that your deity's existence somehow grants humans inalienable rights, he himself takes them away as he damned well pleases, meaning that they are neither inalienable nor rights.

A Christian criticizing atheists for "laying the foundation for tyranny" is laughably thoughtless on your part ... you, who submit to the tyranny of an imaginary deity daily, who surrenders his rights of his own accord in order to avoid offending the nonexistent.

[bennyboy]

Personally, being a Christian, I believe the "rights" you are talking about are inherent rights assigned to us by God.

If I did not believe these rights were assigned to us by someone higher, then I would not believe they were inherent human rights.

Did the Egyptian first-born have rights? How about the children of people God stated would be punished even up to the fourth generation? How about the children in Sodom and Gomorrah? How about all the people wiped out in the great flood in which Noah magically put all species of animal into a big boat?

What I'm saying is that the idea of rights is not consistent with the Bible. Nor (afaik) did God ever state that there are inalienable rights that apply to all mankind. I'm curious where you got the idea from.

[Catholic_Lady]

Personally, being a Christian, I believe the "rights" you are talking about are inherent rights assigned to us by God.

If I did not believe these rights were assigned to us by someone higher, then I would not believe they were inherent human rights.

Did the Egyptian first-born have rights?  How about the children of people God stated would be punished even up to the fourth generation?  How about the children in Sodom and Gomorrah?  How about all the people wiped out in the great flood in which Noah magically put all species of animal into a big boat?

What I'm saying is that the idea of rights is not consistent with the Bible.  Nor (afaik) did God ever state that there are inalienable rights that apply to all mankind.

Every human being has the inherent right to life. If those people were all real people, I would say they had just as much right to live as anyone else. I don't think they were real people or that these story are any more than parable. I have talked about this many times throughout this forum.

The idea of rights is consistent with my Catholic beliefs.

[bennyboy]

Every human being has the inherent right to life. If those people were all real people, I would say they had just as much right to live as anyone else. I don't think they were real people or that these story are any more than parable. I have talked about this many times throughout this forum.

The idea of rights is consistent with my Catholic beliefs.

Okay, let's say that the Bible stories are ALL parables, and that the threats, the genocide, etc. in the Bible are all just stories to emphasize a moral point. Which of them, in your opinion, show that God extends universal rights to all of mankind? Which rights are they, and if you aren't too busy, which passages, lead you to believe this?

[Catholic_Lady]

Every human being has the inherent right to life. If those people were all real people, I would say they had just as much right to live as anyone else. I don't think they were real people or that these story are any more than parable. I have talked about this many times throughout this forum.

The idea of rights is consistent with my Catholic beliefs.

Okay, let's say that the Bible stories are ALL parables, and that the threats, the genocide, etc. in the Bible are all just stories to emphasize a moral point.  Which of them, in your opinion, show that God extends universal rights to all of mankind?  Which rights are they, and if  you aren't too busy, which passages, lead you to believe this?

The bible is very important, but the bible is not the Church Itself. The Church is not sola scriptura, and is not bound entirely by the words in the bible. I don't know which bible verse talks about human rights. When I want to know what Catholicism teaches about human rights, I look at the Catechism, Magisterium, etc. I don't open up the bible and look for it there. :

This question would much better apply to either one of the two protestants here, since they rely solely on the bible, I believe.

[Neo-Scholastic]

I don't know which bible verse talks about human rights. When I want to know what Catholicism teaches about human rights,...

You will find it in the philosophy of Thomas Aquinas.

[Catholic_Lady]

I don't know which bible verse talks about human rights. When I want to know what Catholicism teaches about human rights,...

You will find it in the philosophy of Thomas Aquinas.

Have you read Thomas Aquinas?

(btw, I was making the assumption that you were not Catholic... was I wrong?)

[Mudhammam]

In the most basic sense we do not have inherent rights. A 'right' is a concept that had its provenience as our ability to think and form ideas evolved. Because of this, rights are fluid and changing, just like morality. However when taken into consideration under a snap-shot in time, these rights may be defined as universal but a look at how humanity has developed can easily pinpoint how the idea of rights being somewhat of a shape shifter. We have rights only to the point that they can be thought of and granted by a community. 

I'm open to other forms of logic in the discussion though. 

Sure, a "right" is a concept but that doesn't negate the possibility that it IS a valid description of something in nature, related to sentient, AND/OR rational beings ("mankind" seems somehow too anthropocentric, or limited), that confers duties upon said beings to act, or to strive towards an ideal, in a given manner.

After all, one could also say the following, and I think it would be entirely true, yet not an argument against the concept: 
"A 'truth' is a concept that had its provenience as our ability to think and form ideas evolved. Because of this, truths are fluid and changing, just like morality. However when taken into consideration under a snap-shot in time, these truths may be defined as universal but a look at how humanity has developed can easily pinpoint how the idea of truth being somewhat of a shape shifter. We have truth only to the point that they can be thought of and granted by a community (such as a consensus amongst scientists or philosophers)."

I'm not saying I think there is a justification for human rights that demonstrates their objectivity and universality in such a way that leaves the argument closed to a refutation or dismissal. I tend to agree with Chad that only via something like deity (though perhaps we need not stoop that low) does the idea of universal human rights, relegated to us as a sort of fundamental law of nature, begin to seem defensible. Then again, if, like Chuck says, "beneficial fantasies" are sometimes necessary for maximizing welfare, Pandora's box --- as far as rationalism is concerned --- may already be open.

[Neo-Scholastic]

Did the Egyptian first-born have rights?  How about the children of people God stated would be punished even up to the fourth generation?  How about the children in Sodom and Gomorrah?  How about all the people wiped out in the great flood in which Noah magically put all species of animal into a big boat? What I'm saying is that the idea of rights is not consistent with the Bible.

That would not be true. Justice and Mercy are the only modifying circumstances of rights. Christians and Jews believe in a eternally just God. Any innocent caught-up in acts of Divine retribution will be recompensed as promised in Rev. 21:4 - "He will wipe the tears from their eyes..." and Joel 2:25 - "I will restore the years the locusts have eaten..."

From previous threads I know the political views of many atheist members and they are overwhelmingly liberal. From the comments above it is clear that liberals cannot be trusted to protect anyone's rights and generally are in favor of meddling and regulating them away (like Parkers Tan who clearly has totalitarian sympathies) when it suits their agendas.

[Neo-Scholastic]

You will find it in the philosophy of Thomas Aquinas.

Have you read Thomas Aquinas?

(btw, I was making the assumption that you were not Catholic... was I wrong?)

Aquinas is one of my favorite philosophers. I never tire of reading the Schoolmen.

I recognize the Roman Church as the premier Christian institution. I also believe that Reformed Churches and the Post-Reformation Catholic Church share the same essentials. Any minor doctrinal differences can be debated without consequence. But I am not a member of the Roman Catholic Church. I consider myself a Student of Swedenborg and believe that the church exists wherever the Word is preached and practiced.