2 of 4
2
Secular Government = Democide
Posted: 25 September 2006 05:49 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 16 ]  
Sr. Member
RankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  2338
Joined  2006-02-19

[quote author=“waltercat”]
To anonymous:
You CANNOT defend the existence of Human Rights by appealing to God.  If you could then you would.  You can’t and you haven’t and nor has anyone else.

I believe thomas Jefferson used this defense of Human Rights by appealing to God with the following words:

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. — That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, — That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 25 September 2006 06:16 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 17 ]  
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  2168
Joined  2005-11-15

[quote author=“frankr”][quote author=“waltercat”]
To anonymous:
You CANNOT defend the existence of Human Rights by appealing to God.  If you could then you would.  You can’t and you haven’t and nor has anyone else.

I believe thomas Jefferson used this defense of Human Rights by appealing to God with the following words:

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. — That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, — That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness.


He said the “Creator”, frank, not the “Judeo-Christian God of the Bible”. . . who, by all that is written, most certainly never concerned Himself with the Safety and Happiness of his People.

The Creator can mean anything from a willful being to a process  of which we are the result. Being able to determine that it is ideal NOT to be oppressed does not by extention point to a God who instilled that desire, but only a process that led us to the ability to feel such a desire, i.e. evolution of consciousness.

 Signature 


Welcome to Planet Earth, where Belief masquerades as Knowledge!

This way to the Unasked Questions—->
<—- This way to the Unquestioned Answers

Profile
 
 
Posted: 25 September 2006 06:39 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 18 ]  
Sr. Member
RankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  2338
Joined  2006-02-19

I do not believe Jefferson was referring to an evolution of consciousness when he was referencing the Creator nor did I suggest he was referring to the Judeo Christian God. The point is that one has difficulty establishing inalienable human rights without a Creator. This is known as the mudfoot dilemma. The fact that many atheists choose to ignore the source of their inalienable rights while insisting that they have them is known as the ignore the elephant in the room tactic.

The post was to demonstrate to waltercat that contrary to his post, people have defended the existence of human rights by appealing to God. In fact some famous non religious people have done it.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 25 September 2006 07:10 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 19 ]  
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  2168
Joined  2005-11-15

[quote author=“frankr”]The fact that many atheists choose to ignore the source of their inalienable rights while insisting that they have them is known as the ignore the elephant in the room tactic.

I don’t think atheists ignore the source; they simply have no evidence of there being any one source in particular. That being the case, I can appreciate Jefferson’s emphasis on Man being in charge of monitoring those who would govern him. Thom names Safety and Happiness as the goals. . . which would definitely exclude the biblical God from being any sort of co-author. That is one very human document.

 Signature 


Welcome to Planet Earth, where Belief masquerades as Knowledge!

This way to the Unasked Questions—->
<—- This way to the Unquestioned Answers

Profile
 
 
Posted: 25 September 2006 08:32 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 20 ]  
Sr. Member
RankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  2338
Joined  2006-02-19

[quote author=“Mia”][quote author=“frankr”]The fact that many atheists choose to ignore the source of their inalienable rights while insisting that they have them is known as the ignore the elephant in the room tactic.

I don’t think atheists ignore the source; they simply have no evidence of there being any one source in particular. That being the case, I can appreciate Jefferson’s emphasis on Man being in charge of monitoring those who would govern him. Thom names Safety and Happiness as the goals. . . which would definitely exclude the biblical God from being any sort of co-author. That is one very human document.

What elephant? i don’t see any elephant. No don’t look over there. I don’t know what you are talking about.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 26 September 2006 12:52 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 21 ]  
Sr. Member
RankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  2957
Joined  2004-12-02

[quote author=“frankr”]The post was to demonstrate to waltercat that contrary to his post, people have defended the existence of human rights by appealing to God. In fact some famous non religious people have done it.

I never said that people cannot try to defend human rights by appealing to a creator; I only said that you can’t successfully do it.  Jefferson did rhetorically appeal to a Creator to defend Human rights, and maybe he even believed it.  But that doesn’t make his argument successful.

So, for anonymous’ benefit, we should be clear that people have tried to defend human rights without appealing to a creator.  Kant, of course, is the most famous example [I know he claimed that he could prove God’s existence, but his defense of rights did not appeal to God.]

Profile
 
 
Posted: 26 September 2006 12:54 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 22 ]  
Administrator
Avatar
RankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  1568
Joined  2006-03-02

waltercat wrote that previous post.  I forgot to log in.  It’s too easy to do that these days.

 Signature 

What do I care for a hell for oppressors? What good can hell do, since those children have already been tortured? And what becomes of harmony, if there is hell? I want to forgive. I want to embrace. I don’t want more suffering. And if the sufferings of children go to swell the sum of sufferings which was necessary to pay for truth, then I protest that the truth is not worth such a price.
-Ivan Karamazov

Profile
 
 
Posted: 26 September 2006 01:05 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 23 ]  
Member
RankRankRank
Total Posts:  270
Joined  2006-05-30

[quote author=“Anonymous”]If indeed rational secularism is superior to Judeo-Christian principles of law and government, then it would only be to your benefit to explain (to those of us stuck in the Dark Ages & to your selves) where Human Rights come from.

Where on earth do you think human rights come from? (Oh, right, you don’t think it’s “on earth” at all.)

Human rights devolve perfectly naturally from our own condition of being human, having needs, and recognizing that satisfying those needs is dependent upon others, who also have needs which need satisfying, and which we had better, therefore, respect. Quid pro quo. Nothing simpler.

If you believe, on the other hand, that human rights are a gift from God, then you must, of course, have a record somewhere of those rights, spelled out in detail. Of course, you believe you do. It’s called the Bible. It gives me the perfect right to own other people. It gives me the perfect right stone my disobedient daughter to death. It gives me the perfect right tell my wife to shut up in public, and don’t even think to question my judgment until we get home. And if she questions it there, it gives me the perfect right to chastise her physically for it.

On balance, I think I prefer my version of the origin of human rights better.

And I should point out that it is my version that gave the United States its constitution, not the biblical one.

The problem is that you can’t. And if you can’t, then the kind of “Enlightened” Government you would make would leave man stripped naked before the monster of the State. Indeed, this is EXACTLY what history has shown us over the last one hundred years.

Incorrect. I just did. And “man stripped naked before the monster of the State” is a perfectly stupid remark in a nation where the state serves at the will of man.

It is, in fact, only since the religious right have began regaining the levers of power that the man has started to lose those rights and freedoms which the constitution guarantees.

You have it, as is so often the case, completely backward.

Also, it is not enough to cite the Crusades and the Inquisitions to say that Secular Atheistic governments are superior to Judeo-Christian.  Secular Atheistic Governments have to defend their own record, and that record is an abomination.

All governments must defend their own records, and none of them have been particularly good. We could spend a lot of time throwing up examples of secular and religious governments, citing both great good and unbelievable horror. Neither of us would win, and I don’t intend to try.

And the reason for that is perfectly simple. All governments are, eventually, run by men. All men are tainted when they achieve power over other men. That is the single best reason to suppose that all governments must be regularly replaced. They keep no better than fish.

Let us waste no more time pointing fingers at the burning of witches and heretics by religious governments, nor the wanton killing of citizens by secular ones (which, having their own dogmas weren’t quite so “secular” after all). These things were not accomplished by religious or secular, but by venal men who thought they could get away with it. God didn’t stop Stalin, but he didn’t stop any of the Popes, or Bloody Mary, or Torquemada, either.

I happen to think that Human Rights are EXTREMELY important, so do most people.

I can defend the basis of Human Rights using Faith AND Reason.

You CAN NOT defend the basis of Human Rights with Reason alone. If you could, you would.

Every free-thinker and humanist on this board also happens to think that human rights are important. But they are not based on the dictates of some mythical god (or many - don’t forget that there are other people than Christians).

Now then, I have defended human rights with reason. I want to hear your defense of human rights based on faith. Using the Bible—- all of it!—- tell me why I should not have the right to own another person. Using the Bible, tell me why I should not have the right to kill my child, or rebuke my wife for having her own opinion in public, as in my world she has the perfect right to do.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 26 September 2006 01:44 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 24 ]  
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  2168
Joined  2005-11-15

Whew, now that was a breath of fresh air—well spoke, evangelicalhumanist!

 Signature 


Welcome to Planet Earth, where Belief masquerades as Knowledge!

This way to the Unasked Questions—->
<—- This way to the Unquestioned Answers

Profile
 
 
Posted: 26 September 2006 04:54 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 25 ]  
Sr. Member
RankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  2957
Joined  2004-12-02

Human rights devolve perfectly naturally from our own condition of being human, having needs, and recognizing that satisfying those needs is dependent upon others, who also have needs which need satisfying, and which we had better, therefore, respect. Quid pro quo. Nothing simpler.

EvangelicalHumanist,

Nice try, but your explaination is abstract, unrooted in human experience, and doesn’t hold up to scrutiny.

The concrete origin of human rights begins with Judaism and Genesis.  For the first time in history we see a new idea about God and about Man. God is good, not a fickle tyrant, and God made everything, including Man as good (i.e. in accord with God’s nature).  Then specifically, God made Man in “God’s image and likeness.”

Regardless of whether or not you believe this account to be true, you can not ignore that this account of God’s Nature and Man’s Nature is totally unique in History.  All contemporary creation accounts have God as Master and Man as slave.

This is where the concept of human rights has its origin - not abstractly, but concretely in human experience and history. 

The concept of a Human Right, is the idea that human beings have an inherent dignity which others have a duty to recognize.  A rights and duties go together. 

What you are describing is a kind of social contract theory where men must live together and get along so they invent a system of rights to manage that interaction.  However, this theory makes the State the arbitor of rights, i.e. the creator and author. Because who is going to define those rights and who is going to enforce them? As you wrote, “we had better ... respect” those rights.  In this statement, it implies a punishment or consequence for violating the duty to acknowledge other’s rights.  The problem with your theory is that it doesn’t accord with the development of Rights, and it doesn’t offer an adequate defense of Rights before the power of the State.  What the State can give, the State can take away . . . and indeed EVERY secularist State massacred its own citizens as a matter of social policy.

(Which, by the way, is very different from promoting a just war, or creating a court for the due process prosecution of the historical equivalent of state terrorists.) 

If you believe, on the other hand, that human rights are a gift from God, then you must, of course, have a record somewhere of those rights, spelled out in detail. Of course, you believe you do. It’s called the Bible. It gives me the perfect right to own other people. It gives me the perfect right stone my disobedient daughter to death. It gives me the perfect right tell my wife to shut up in public, and don’t even think to question my judgment until we get home. And if she questions it there, it gives me the perfect right to chastise her physically for it.

I’m frequently amazed at how illiterate secularists are when it comes to religion. They have lots of assumptions which have very little to do with reality.  The above quote is a good example of this.  Rights are not a gift from God, life, Creation the Faith are all gifts from God. Rights stem from our NATURE as God created us.

If you read Dei Verbum, you would discover that Catholics are not Biblical literalists.  We don’t pour over the Bible looking for rights to enumberate!  We read Scripture as a whole, not in contextless passages.  Indeed, we don’t rely upon revelation alone, but on revelation AND Reason.  To rely upon Reason alone, leads to blindness; to rely upon Faith alone, leads to fanaticism.

Your assertions above reveal your own illiteracy about religious Faith. 

The body of human rights articulated in Catholic Social Teaching are the fruit of reflection on the meaning of the Whole of Scripture in the light of Reason. 

 

Let us waste no more time pointing fingers at the burning of witches and heretics by religious governments, nor the wanton killing of citizens by secular ones (which, having their own dogmas weren’t quite so “secular” after all). These things were not accomplished by religious or secular, but by venal men who thought they could get away with it.

As a person of Reason (alone), I suspect you consider Truth an important thing.  Therefore I direct you to this interesting article:

http://www.draeconin.com/database/witchhunt.htm

It is an essay by a Medieval Historian who also happens to be a practicing Witch. It is about debunking the myth that the Catholic Church burned millions of witches at the stake. I think this passage is very interesting:

“Popular history places the witchcraft persecutions in the Middle Ages (5th-14th centuries). 19th century historians considered the Great Hunt an outburst of superstitious hysteria, fostered and spread by the Catholic Church. Naturally, therefore, the persecution would be worst when the Church’s power was the greatest: in the Middle Ages, before the Reformation split the Church into warring Catholic and Protestant
sects. Certainly there were trials in the early modern period (15th-18th centuries), but they must have been a pale shadow of the horrors that came before. Modern research has debunked this theory quite conclusively. Although many stereotypes about witches pre-date Christianity, the lethal crazes of the Great Hunt were actually the child of the “Age of Reason.”

When you look carefully (as opposed to getting your history from the History Channel) as the evidence, you will find the myths about Catholicism to be just that myths.

You made reference to witches, so I thought you should know what honest historians have discovered about this. 

I agree with you that there will always be bad men who do bad things when in power regardless of whether they profess a faith or not. However, what we see repeatedly with every secular government is the institution of Democide as part of public policy.

There is something very unnatural and inhuman about the Secular Experiments in Government in the modern era.  There is no exception.

I submit to you, it is because there is no “check” on the State.  The State becomes the author of all human rights . . . indeed your own explaination of human rights confirms this.

 

Profile
 
 
Posted: 26 September 2006 05:18 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 26 ]  
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  3255
Joined  2004-12-24

[quote author=“Anonymous”] . . . come on Byron, you’re not making a convincing case for secularism!


The Bible is right about “casting pearls before swine,” it just applies a liberal dose of doublespeak and turns it on its head.

Byron

 Signature 

“We say, ‘Love your brother…’ We don’t say it really, but… Well we don’t literally say it. We don’t really, literally mean it. No, we don’t believe it either, but… But that message should be clear.”—David St. Hubbins

Profile
 
 
Posted: 26 September 2006 05:25 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 27 ]  
Member
RankRankRank
Total Posts:  270
Joined  2006-05-30

[quote author=“Anonymous”]

Human rights devolve perfectly naturally from our own condition of being human, having needs, and recognizing that satisfying those needs is dependent upon others, who also have needs which need satisfying, and which we had better, therefore, respect. Quid pro quo. Nothing simpler.

EvangelicalHumanist,

Nice try, but your explaination is abstract, unrooted in human experience, and doesn’t hold up to scrutiny.

The concrete origin of human rights begins with Judaism and Genesis.  For the first time in history we see a new idea about God and about Man. God is good, not a fickle tyrant, and God made everything, including Man as good (i.e. in accord with God’s nature).  Then specifically, God made Man in “God’s image and likeness.”

Regardless of whether or not you believe this account to be true, you can not ignore that this account of God’s Nature and Man’s Nature is totally unique in History.  All contemporary creation accounts have God as Master and Man as slave.

This is where the concept of human rights has its origin - not abstractly, but concretely in human experience and history. 

The concept of a Human Right, is the idea that human beings have an inherent dignity which others have a duty to recognize.  A rights and duties go together. 

What you are describing is a kind of social contract theory where men must live together and get along so they invent a system of rights to manage that interaction.  However, this theory makes the State the arbitor of rights, i.e. the creator and author. Because who is going to define those rights and who is going to enforce them? As you wrote, “we had better ... respect” those rights.  In this statement, it implies a punishment or consequence for violating the duty to acknowledge other’s rights.  The problem with your theory is that it doesn’t accord with the development of Rights, and it doesn’t offer an adequate defense of Rights before the power of the State.  What the State can give, the State can take away . . . and indeed EVERY secularist State massacred its own citizens as a matter of social policy.

(Which, by the way, is very different from promoting a just war, or creating a court for the due process prosecution of the historical equivalent of state terrorists.) 

If you believe, on the other hand, that human rights are a gift from God, then you must, of course, have a record somewhere of those rights, spelled out in detail. Of course, you believe you do. It’s called the Bible. It gives me the perfect right to own other people. It gives me the perfect right stone my disobedient daughter to death. It gives me the perfect right tell my wife to shut up in public, and don’t even think to question my judgment until we get home. And if she questions it there, it gives me the perfect right to chastise her physically for it.

I’m frequently amazed at how illiterate secularists are when it comes to religion. They have lots of assumptions which have very little to do with reality.  The above quote is a good example of this.  Rights are not a gift from God, life, Creation the Faith are all gifts from God. Rights stem from our NATURE as God created us.

If you read Dei Verbum, you would discover that Catholics are not Biblical literalists.  We don’t pour over the Bible looking for rights to enumberate!  We read Scripture as a whole, not in contextless passages.  Indeed, we don’t rely upon revelation alone, but on revelation AND Reason.  To rely upon Reason alone, leads to blindness; to rely upon Faith alone, leads to fanaticism.

Your assertions above reveal your own illiteracy about religious Faith. 

The body of human rights articulated in Catholic Social Teaching are the fruit of reflection on the meaning of the Whole of Scripture in the light of Reason. 

 

Let us waste no more time pointing fingers at the burning of witches and heretics by religious governments, nor the wanton killing of citizens by secular ones (which, having their own dogmas weren’t quite so “secular” after all). These things were not accomplished by religious or secular, but by venal men who thought they could get away with it.

As a person of Reason (alone), I suspect you consider Truth an important thing.  Therefore I direct you to this interesting article:

http://www.draeconin.com/database/witchhunt.htm

It is an essay by a Medieval Historian who also happens to be a practicing Witch. It is about debunking the myth that the Catholic Church burned millions of witches at the stake. I think this passage is very interesting:

“Popular history places the witchcraft persecutions in the Middle Ages (5th-14th centuries). 19th century historians considered the Great Hunt an outburst of superstitious hysteria, fostered and spread by the Catholic Church. Naturally, therefore, the persecution would be worst when the Church’s power was the greatest: in the Middle Ages, before the Reformation split the Church into warring Catholic and Protestant
sects. Certainly there were trials in the early modern period (15th-18th centuries), but they must have been a pale shadow of the horrors that came before. Modern research has debunked this theory quite conclusively. Although many stereotypes about witches pre-date Christianity, the lethal crazes of the Great Hunt were actually the child of the “Age of Reason.”

When you look carefully (as opposed to getting your history from the History Channel) as the evidence, you will find the myths about Catholicism to be just that myths.

You made reference to witches, so I thought you should know what honest historians have discovered about this. 

I agree with you that there will always be bad men who do bad things when in power regardless of whether they profess a faith or not. However, what we see repeatedly with every secular government is the institution of Democide as part of public policy.

There is something very unnatural and inhuman about the Secular Experiments in Government in the modern era.  There is no exception.

I submit to you, it is because there is no “check” on the State.  The State becomes the author of all human rights . . . indeed your own explaination of human rights confirms this.

 

I was actually going to respond to all of this in depth. I’ve decided to be much more brief.

Twaddle!

Profile
 
 
Posted: 26 September 2006 05:49 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 28 ]  
Sr. Member
RankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  2957
Joined  2004-12-02

Oh I don’t know Guest…when was the last time Saddam Hussein flooded the entire world, embryos and all? 

besides, which Old testament God are you talking about?  Elohim or Yahweh?  You see, there are least 2 different Old Testament writers writing their own narratives that would eventually be combined into a book.  This is why God creates man and woman, then shortly after he creates Eve and we hear nothing more of the previous woman.  It’s probably also why Adam and Eve’s sons get married to women, despite the fact that at this point in time, Adam, Eve, and their sons are supposed to be the only people on Flat Earth.

You missed the point.

The Creation account (taken together as a whole - objective and personalist) is UNIQUE.  Take a look at the creation accounts which are contemporary to the Genesis account. The “truths” found in this account form the basis of our modern Human Rights system.

Why?

Because it presents something radically new and liberating about the Nature of God, the Nature of Creation and the Nature of Man.

To this day, you benefit from the fruit of this idea.  This is not simply my opinion, it is the fact of the matter.

Further, without this concept, and without the concept of the Natural Law (again something which stems from our understanding of the Nature of God and Man), there can be no basis for condemning the crimes of the Nazis, nor can we justify Rosa Parks’ violation of the civil law as she did during the Civil Rights era.

It is only the Natural Law which gives meaning to these acts of Justice.  Reason alone can do the job.

 

 

Profile
 
 
Posted: 26 September 2006 05:51 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 29 ]  
Sr. Member
RankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  2957
Joined  2004-12-02

Sorry, I meant:

Reason alone can not do the job.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 26 September 2006 06:01 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 30 ]  
Sr. Member
RankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  2957
Joined  2004-12-02

[quote author=“Anonymous”]The concrete origin of human rights begins with Judaism and Genesis.  For the first time in history we see a new idea about God and about Man. God is good, not a fickle tyrant, and God made everything, including Man as good (i.e. in accord with God’s nature).  Then specifically, God made Man in “God’s image and likeness.”

[. . .]

I’m frequently amazed at how illiterate secularists are when it comes to religion. They have lots of assumptions which have very little to do with reality.  The above quote is a good example of this.  Rights are not a gift from God, life, Creation the Faith are all gifts from God. Rights stem from our NATURE as God created us.

And I am frequently amazed at the ignorance of people like the author of the above.  He apparently has never even heard of Plato’s Euthyophro and the ensuing dilemma that is poses for the belief that God is the source of objective moral duties.  Nor, apparently, has he read the book that people such as he claim is the literal word (or inspired word of God).  In that book you’ll find a God who does not care a wit about the rights of the Canannites (he commands that they be wiped from the face of the earth, including the women and children), nor does he think that all humans have the right of autonomy (since he not only condones slavery but he even condones the beating of slaves; see Ex 21:20).

God is not, never was, and never will be the source of objective moral obligations.  Mr. Anonymous refuses to actually explain how God can be such a source, and he refuse to explain God’s Holy book can have passages that present God as having blatant disgregard for the rights of so many humans.  All the Anonymous does is take cheap, uninformed shots at those who believe that our rights do not come from God.  This is not the work of an intellectually honest person.

Profile
 
 
   
2 of 4
2
 
RSS 2.0     Atom Feed