This article sounds like it could have been written by me. I find I surprise people a lot. Either they know of my belief in letting people do what they want without legal hindrance, and are surprised to learn that I am a fundamentalist Christian; or else they know I am a Christian and are surprised to learn I do not support laws banning unChristian activity. (The latter surprises probably happen a lot less frequently than leftists might expect, because believe it or not more of the religious world agrees with me than you might expect. Sometimes I forget that there are a bunch of religious people out there who really do want to force their religion on everybody else, because I just don't see it that often.)
Perhaps as another surprise, the only thing I disagree with in the column is the assertion that rights come from God. He is correct that rights do not come from the government. But rights are inalienable and you can believe they came from wherever you want to believe they came from. Rights come from the basic fact that each person owns himself. The only way to deny that fact is to assert that someone else owns that person. If you can't assume or prove that a person owns himself, then you certainly can't muster the even greater proof which would be necessary to demonstrate that someone else owns him, so I think this is a pretty solid axiom.
While you may not agree that certain rights come from God, our forefathers do not seem to agree with that point of view. That is why they express "We are endowed by our Creator with certain inalienable rights."
That said, I am a fundametalist baptist, and I believe in individual soul liberty.
Re:Certain rights...
jdavidb on 2005-09-16T19:43:53
Well, let's clarify. I believe rights come from God. However, I believe that even those who do not believe in God must also believe that we possess inalienable rights. Since I have no right to govern other people, a just legal system may only be established between us by consent, and since they are not going to agree with my that rights come from God, it's important to me to emphasize that we have rights by virtue of self-ownership whether or not there is a God. Meanwhile, those of us who know about God can probably appreciate more fully the fact that we have self-ownership as a gift from Him.
In fact, a better way of putting it might be that a Christian does not really believe he has self-ownership. He is owned by God. But legally there is no distinction between, "We don't have the right to tell you what to do because God owns you," and "We don't have the right to tell you what to do because you own you." Either way, it boils down to the only permissible legal stance being, "We don't have the right to tell you what to do because no matter who you believe you are owned by, it is clearly not us."
Re:Certain rights...
jmm on 2005-09-16T20:25:39
I agree with your arrument, although I'm sure that some of the consequences will be unacceptable to some people.
You can consider a religion to be a form of government - it provides a framework of rules and guidelines for individuals to follow in living out their life.
Just as self-ownership implies that government is valid only to the extent that it works by mutual consent of the individuals governed, it also implies that a religion is only valid to the extent that it works by mutual consent of the individuals to whom the tenets of the religion are being applied.POV
phillup on 2005-09-16T22:02:18
Meanwhile, those of us who know about God can probably appreciate more fully the fact that we have self-ownership as a gift from Him.
Meanwhile... I'm sitting in church one day and start thinking to myself:
This Garden of Eden thing... it is a cage. A nice cage, mind you. But a cage none the less.
Then, one day this dude comes along and says "if you eat this, you'll be able to get out of the cage".
So... you bite.
Next thing you know... you are on your ass in the middle of nowhere.
But you aren't in a cage any more.
Me? I'd credit the other guy with my being free... if I believed in them.Re:POV
sigzero on 2005-09-16T22:12:34
You really do not understand that "Garden of Eden" thing. Really you don't.Re:POV
phillup on 2005-09-16T22:52:34
Happily guilty.
A few years of not attending church and the indoctrination starts wearing off.
A few more years and the oppressiveness of it all finally wears off.
Then, you truly do feel free.
But... it isn't the Garden of Eden thing... it starts much earlier in the story.
--
One day there was this kid who was really bored because he like never dies and stuff... so he decided to make some new toys to play with.
The neighbbor kid next door sees what he is doing and comes over and picks up one of the toys.
This makes the kid really mad, because now his toy isn't special any more... so, he decides to take it out on the toy for ever and ever.
Amen.
--
To me, the problem is in chapter zero... not chapter one.
I have two boys. One is 4 years old, the other is 11 months old.
My four year old *knows* that if he takes a toy out to play with, and his little brother is around, then the little one may want to play with the toy. So, he doesn't play with certain toys while his little brother is around. (This is mostly with books that the little one wants to eat.)
So... he knows something... and acts appropriately. To do otherwise would be stupid.
But... this "God" that knows everything creates everything knowing it is gonna be screwed up?
That isn't just stupid... it is psychotic.
And if the answer as to why he did it knowing it would go down the way it is all about choice... then fine. I choose not to believe.
But... even if it were all real... when someone says to me "do this or else" I find only one response is appropriate.
F*ck off.
He really, really hasn't made a compelling argument. Instead, I'm more interested in the options... thank you very much.Re:Certain rights...
sigzero on 2005-09-16T22:09:51
Ah, yes that does clarify what you meant.Re:Certain rights...
phillup on 2005-09-16T21:22:42
They also wrote that all men are created equal.
Then, in a subsequent document directed that black men be counted as less than a whole white person.
Point being, they've been known to make mistakes.
<shrug>
More importantly, the writing of the second document was a compromise. It is entirely possible that the use of the word 'creator' instead of 'God' was also.
While the existence of God is debatable, the fact that each person has "a creator" is less so... for instance, my parents created me. That isn't something I can debate. (who they may actually be... that is a completely different story...)Re:Certain rights...
sigzero on 2005-09-17T13:23:58
Well, of course they made mistakes they are people. It wasn't until the 1900's that the full effect of that statement comes to bear (sufferage, civil rights movement). We are still in many ways still struggling with it. However, that wasn't the point I was making anyway. And you a probably right that "Creator" was used instead of "God" as a compromise, but that is something only they know for sure.
Re:Certain rights...
phillup on 2005-09-19T17:13:18
However, that wasn't the point I was making anyway.
I'm sorry. I think I missed the point then...
I thought you were trying to say that our forefathers thought freedom came from God.
