Pre-existing rights - American Christian Edition

[Michael]

Pre-existing rights - American Christian Edition

There is always lots of talk about how the US Declaration and the US Constitution both make references to pre-existing rights (overtly in the Declaration, indirectly in the Constitution). The essential argument is that the government is only recognizing the existence of these rights with these documents - that the rights themselves were pre-existing.

Following this logic, and the wording of the US Declaration, the rights are pre-existing because they were endowed by the Creator.

Well, if that "Creator" is the same as the Christian God, then I have a question about God's questionable history of repecting these same rights. The Adam and Eve story clearly shows God violating the rights of free speech and free assembly (exacting punishment for Eve's free speech and association with the Serpent). The Flood story shows God ignoring the "right to life" in a big way - wiping out whole populations out of spite.

How can these rights be real if the [alleged] source of these rights doesn't actually recognize them or abide by them?

Seems like a slight contradiction here. :ummm:

Alternatively, if the Christian God isn't the source of these pre-existing rights, then the Declaration and the basis of rights in America is nothing more than a noble lie.

Or for the non-Christian 'human rights' supporters, what is the source of these rights?

Any thoughts on this topic?

[Michael]

One additional question along the same lines:

If these rights are "inalienable" then how come God and/or the US Government can over-ride them?

[WFCY]

I won't play along the Christian line, since I am not a believer and I think all that is nonsense.

For me, nobody is born with any rights. All rights are alienable. We have no born rights. Instead, we have won rights. You are entitled to as much rights as your social, economic, national and kinship group is able to win and keep for you, and other groups are going to want to take them away from you so they can exploit you. That's talking on the scale of civilized societies. If we are in a pre-historic tribe, you are entitled to as much rights as you can get with your fists and your spear, and if you are woman, your right depends on the man you manage to attract.

For someone who's been involved in social struggles in the past, I have little illusion about "rights". And I know Martin Luthor King Jr., Malcolm X, Miles Horton, etc, will tell you exactly the same thing when it comes down to "rights".

[Michael]

I won't play along the Christian line, since I am not a believer and I think all that is nonsense.

For me, nobody is born with any rights. All rights are alienable. We have no born rights. Instead, we have won rights. You are entitled to as much rights as your social, economic, national and kinship group is able to win and keep for you, and other groups are going to want to take them away from you so they can exploit you. That's talking on the scale of civilized societies. If we are in a pre-historic tribe, you are entitled to as much rights as you can get with your fists and your spear, and if you are woman, your right depends on the man you manage to attract.

For someone who's been involved in social struggles in the past, I have little illusion about "rights". And I know Martin Luthor King Jr., Malcolm X, Miles Horton, etc, will tell you exactly the same thing when it comes down to "rights".

I have long advocated the same view of rights. I guess I just like trolling this topic since so many people like to disagree. :)

[Americano]

I have long advocated the same view of rights. I guess I just like trolling this topic since so many people like to disagree. :)

Considering the tiny number of believers on this forum I don't think you're going to get much action.

[Non Sequitur]

Ok i'll take a swing :D

Pre-existing rights - American Christian Edition

There is always lots of talk about how the US Declaration and the US Constitution both make references to pre-existing rights (overtly in the Declaration, indirectly in the Constitution). The essential argument is that the government is only recognizing the existence of these rights with these documents - that the rights themselves were pre-existing.

Following this logic, and the wording of the US Declaration, the rights are pre-existing because they were endowed by the Creator.

Well, if that "Creator" is the same as the Christian God, then I have a question about God's questionable history of repecting these same rights. The Adam and Eve story clearly shows God violating the rights of free speech and free assembly (exacting punishment for Eve's free speech and association with the Serpent). The Flood story shows God ignoring the "right to life" in a big way - wiping out whole populations out of spite.

How can these rights be real if the [alleged] source of these rights doesn't actually recognize them or abide by them?

Seems like a slight contradiction here. :ummm:

First, the rights bestowed on people by virtue of the Imago Dei are rights that are to function between human relationships and not humanity's relationship with the Divine. Technically speaking, humanity has no rights before the Divine because

1. Our sin puts all of humanity in rebellion against God. If I am to be a bad Lutheran and preaching pure Law (instead of Law and Gospel) I say that we forfeited everything when we sinned. The medieval analogy was that we are rebellious vassals before our Lord and King.

2. we are the creation and God is the creator. That relationship is not a relationship between equals.

Second, this only seems like a contradiction if you make the rights the first priority. However, a correct way of looking at this is that the rights of people come after the law of God. The Law of God trumps all political rights. We must look at this as though humanity has a running deal with God. God promises to be our God and we promise to be his people. However, in order for us to be his people we must follow his instructions. Adam and Eve are justly punished because they violated a command of God (the only command actually). The Israelites have the land taken away from them because they fail to uphold there end of the bargain.

Third it is wise to make a distinction between the heavenly city and the earthly city. God gives certain gifts to the realm of this world (aka freedoms and government) in order to restrain Evil in God's creation. However, the earthly city is not the ultimate destination. The "New Heaven and a New Earth" (Revelation 21) is the ultimate destination where such rights will be moot. The people God (both in scripture and today) are in an awkward position of being in both places.

Alternatively, if the Christian God isn't the source of these pre-existing rights, then the Declaration and the basis of rights in America is nothing more than a noble lie.

Or for the non-Christian 'human rights' supporters, what is the source of these rights?

Any thoughts on this topic?

well that's not my problem :D I have other issues to sort out.

I would like to say that most of the above is not my personal answer to the problem. The third paragraph is closest to what I believe, but I must add on other point. The Biblical record does speak of freedom. Most notably "for it is for freedom that Christ has set you free" (Galatians 5:1). However, the Biblical conception of freedom and the modern political one are different. In the modern sense of the word freedom usually means the ability to self determine. The Biblical conception of freedom is always a liberation from something to do something else or serve someone else. As examples, think of the Israelites. They were slaves to the Egyptians and God freed them to be his people (God did not free them to do what ever they wanted). Paul writes, "But now that you have been set free from sin and have become slaves to God, the benefit you reap leads to holiness, and the result is eternal life." (Romans 6:22). The Biblical conception is that God frees you do something else.

[Non Sequitur]

just to clear up my post, the first, second, and third answers are really three different perspectives on how to answer the question. The first two being more in line with the Old Testament and the third is really just quoting Augustine. My last point about freedom just clarifies what I consider to be a common mix up with the issue.

[evanescence]

Pre existing is an oxymoron.

[WFCY]

Pre existing is an oxymoron.

self-evidently ;)

[evanescence]

self-evidently ;)

:lol: