If rights come from God, not social contract, then why

[SpicyMcVoodoo]

Originally Posted by lew

I don't think rights come from God. I think that certain rights come from God, the rest come from social contracts.

Where do you draw the line?

[lew]

Originally Posted by SpicyMcVoodoo

Where do you draw the line?

It just depends upon what it is. A "right to life" is from God. So is liberty and freedom.


A right to a jury and a lawyer, however, would be a social contract right, not a God-given right.

[SpicyMcVoodoo]

Originally Posted by lew

It just depends upon what it is. A "right to life" is from God. So is liberty and freedom.


A right to a jury and a lawyer, however, would be a social contract right, not a God-given right.

How do you guard the right to liberty and freedom without a jury, lawyer, etc?

[lew]

Originally Posted by SpicyMcVoodoo

How do you guard the right to liberty and freedom without a jury, lawyer, etc?

That's pretty much the point. The rights we have that need to be protected are God-given. The rights we have to protect our God-given rights are from social contract.

[ballz2wallz]

I don't know that it's true that the most religious people think that.

[Phantom]

Originally Posted by SpicyMcVoodoo

How do you guard the right to liberty and freedom without a jury, lawyer, etc?

Maybe the right is just to be free and not be subject to imprisonment on a whim. Just because it's not specifically protected doesn't mean it's not a fundamental right (see marriage)

IOW, the fact that the right is unguarded doesn't signify the right is not in force.

[motivez]

I think it's the fact that most Christian's in this country aren't devout enough to really spend their life living according to the Bible and its teachings.

They say they're Christian because it's convienent in one way or another. Socially, they get to attend Church with their neighboors, send their kids to camp, have social outings on Sundays, whatever.

Politically, they get to say they're part of the moral majority, yadda yadda.. etc, etc..

But the reality is, when push comes to shove, they're willing to toss aside those values and support policies that blatently contradict Christianity and its teachings.. unless of course it deals with trying to force other people to live how you want them to.

If they were truly Christian and believed in the teachings of Jesus, we'd see a vastly different opinion of Bush and the policies he and the GOP controlled Congress have put in place.

The Muslim's are kicking the Christian's ass in the piety war..

[lew]

Originally Posted by motivez

I think it's the fact that most Christian's in this country aren't devout enough to really spend their life living according to the Bible and its teachings.

They say they're Christian because it's convienent in one way or another. Socially, they get to attend Church with their neighboors, send their kids to camp, have social outings on Sundays, whatever.

Politically, they get to say they're part of the moral majority, yadda yadda.. etc, etc..

But the reality is, when push comes to shove, they're willing to toss aside those values and support policies that blatently contradict Christianity and its teachings.. unless of course it deals with trying to force other people to live how you want them to.

If they were truly Christian and believed in the teachings of Jesus, we'd see a vastly different opinion of Bush and the policies he and the GOP controlled Congress have put in place.

The Muslim's are kicking the Christian's ass in the piety war..

I agree. If there were more "real" Christians, we'd have much more anarchists.

[SpicyMcVoodoo]

Originally Posted by lew

I agree. If there were more "real" Christians, we'd have much more anarchists.

If more were real Christians, we'd have more pacificists like the Quakers. I don't know how you go from "turn the other cheek" to preemptive war.

[SpicyMcVoodoo]

Originally Posted by lew

That's pretty much the point. The rights we have that need to be protected are God-given. The rights we have to protect our God-given rights are from social contract.

Then what is the purpose of saying rights come from god, and apply to all men equally, if the mechanisms which give those rights force are only present via contract? Were the Founders just in the mood to make pedantic distinctions? Or were they saying that these are rights that cannot be taken away by men?

[kinggovernor]

christianity and the bill of rights run opposite of each other

[lew]

Originally Posted by kinggovernor

christianity and the bill of rights run opposite of each other

[Diesel66]

Originally Posted by lew

.