The "right" to... whatever!

[Sacred_Heart_1]

…life, liberty, pursuit of happiness, health care, free education, food, drink, shelter, clothing… whatever? Where are these “rights” codified, into which law book? Who enforces these “rights”?

Anyone can declare a “right to whatever”, but such a declaration is worthless, unless it is enforced. There are no “natural” rights, “nature” does not grant anyone anything. “Rights” are social constructs, granted by the strongest bully on the block… usually the nation states. But even those entities cannot enforce these so-called “rights”. Sometimes they are able to punish those who violate these declared “rights”, but such a retribution is worthless to those whose life was taken by some other party, which does NOT respect those “rights”.

Just think about it.

I think Jesus does a good enforcement on “food, drink, shelter, clothing”. He says if you don’t do these things for one another then you will be thrown into everlasting fire with the devil and his angels.

 

[Pallas_Athene]

Of course he did declare these rights.

They are found in Catholic Social Justice Teachings.

Do you really think that this is something that is convincing to non-Catholics? What about those, who never heard of Catholicism?

As far as enforcability, that is certainly demonstrated in natural consequences, as well as eternal consequences.

Where can we see those “demonstrations”? Especially the “eternal” consequences? Because - as we all know (or should know) - the rain and the sunshine fall on both the virtuous and the evil ones alike. Not much of a “demonstration”.

---

I think Jesus does a good enforcement on “food, drink, shelter, clothing”. He says if you don’t do these things for one another then you will be thrown into everlasting fire with the devil and his angels.

Words like this mean little, even if they happened.

It is strange that you all consider “enforcement” to be equal with “punishment and retribution”. Unfortunately we humans have no ways and means to deal with problems except “reacting”. There is no “proactive” measure we could take. The real enforcement would be prevention - which would be available to God, if he existed.

This anthropomorphic approach shows that the whole religion is a human concoction, that the inventors of it were simple and simplistic beings who could not think outside the box.

 

[Pallas_Athene]

Some more problems concerning “rights”, especially property rights.

“Rights” are a big thing in the US. You have your property, you have your deed, you “own” your land and your house - free and clear. You pay your taxes. There is no emergency. But… there is some person or a company, which would love to own your land. This someone has “connections” in the town council.

And then the town council declares that it would be to the advantage of the “community” to procure your land and invokes “eminent domain” (look it up on Google). Your property is taken, some compensation is offered. If the compensation is insufficient, you must hire a lawyer - with your own money - and you must fight in court. It does not matter if you and your family “owned” that land for a hundred years.

You don’t “own” even your land and house. “Rights” do not exist.

If someone throws a few seeds of hemp onto your property, and calls the police, your whole property can be confiscated (without compensation). If the police plants a few ounces of marijuana into your trunk, your car can (and will) be confiscated.

And all this can happen in the land of the free, where the property “rights” are taken very seriously. But it is only “words”. The government allows you to play Monopoly with your money and your property… but only as long as it is convenient for them.

 

[PRmerger]

Do you really think that this is something that is convincing to non-Catholics? What about those, who never heard of Catholicism?

What an odd question, given the fact that you, an atheist, are asking where God has declared these putative rights.

Now you’re saying, “That’s not convincing to me”?

You can’t ask for something ask an atheist, granting God’s existence for the sake of the question, then reject the evidence saying, “But I’m an atheist”.

You’re setting up an impossible scenario: I want evidence but I won’t accept your evidence.

 

[guanophore]

Now, IF there would be a God, who could declare some rights, and IF that God would enforce those rights, it would be totally different story. But even if there IS a God, he did not declare any rights, and certainly does not enforce those nonexistent “rights”.

Well, we see it differently, don’t we?

---

I suspect that you are not acquainted with the Treaty of Tripoli, signed and ratified by the US Senate in 1797. As it says in the Article 11:
Art. 11. As the Government of the United States of America is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion; as it has in itself no character of enmity against the laws, religion, or tranquility, of Mussulmen (Muslims); and as the said States never entered into any war or act of hostility against any Mahometan (Mohammedan) nation, it is declared by the parties that no pretext arising from religious opinions shall ever produce an interruption of the harmony existing between the two countries.

And it is an accurate statement. The US is founded on freedom of religion, civil liberty, and I think there were more founding fathers that were actually Deists.

---

You mean that people should be free to profess and practice any and all religions, but they should NOT be allowed to be free of religions?

Certainly, individuals can choose to be free of religion. Perhaps you claim this right for yourself, though I must stay it is curious that you choose to come to a very religious forum.

If this were not the case, those of us who pay to support your choice to post here would not be enabling you to make statements such as the one at the top of this post. We are supporting your freedom monetarily, materially, civillly and spiritually.

Not too long ago this was the attitude in numerous states (South Carolina was one of them), and it was part of the law that people who do not declare that they are religious were not allowed to hold public office - not even a notary public. (Mind you, it was fine to LIE about their religion... but to be honest about the LACK of religion was not.)

Yes. I think this is a form of discrimination, and especially concerning in an environment that claims separation of church and state.

Fortunately this ridiculous law was abolished. Freedom OF religion must include freedom FROM religion.

Yes, but I do not think that people need to deprive me of my religion in order to be free from it. We can create a society where every individual has the freedom to believe and practice what they choose, without alienating one another.

 

[guanophore]

… It does not matter if you and your family “owned” that land for a hundred years.

I certainly think the First Nations people have this same complaint.

You don’t “own” even your land and house. “Rights” do not exist.

This is simply a false conclusion.

If someone throws a few seeds of hemp onto your property, and calls the police, your whole property can be confiscated (without compensation). If the police plants a few ounces of marijuana into your trunk, your car can (and will) be confiscated.

Only if you allow the seeds to sprout and be recognized from the street.

And all this can happen in the land of the free, where the property “rights” are taken very seriously. But it is only “words”. The government allows you to play Monopoly with your money and your property… but only as long as it is convenient for them.

This post seems to be authored by a disgruntled victim of something.

 

[Pallas_Athene]

What an odd question, given the fact that you, an atheist, are asking where God has declared these putative rights.

Sure, what is wrong with asking? And your answer could have been: “There are no rights, God did not declare any rights” - which he did not, not even in the Bible. The “Catholic Social Justice Teachings” are simple human concoctions. And that would have been acceptable.

Now you’re saying, “That’s not convincing to me”?

Not just “ME”, to all the non-Catholics.

You’re setting up an impossible scenario: I want evidence but I won’t accept your evidence.

I would accept your evidence, if there would be any evidence. Actually I simply brought forth an analysis, with which you disagreed (and that is perfectly fine, of course). The trouble is that your disagreement was unfounded.

 

[PRmerger]

Where can we see those “demonstrations”? Especially the “eternal” consequences? Because - as we all know (or should know) - the rain and the sunshine fall on both the virtuous and the evil ones alike. Not much of a “demonstration”.

Here’s an excellent, though tragic example:

#methaddict

 

[PRmerger]

Sure, what is wrong with asking?

Well, there’s nothing wrong with the asking.

It just turns out that it was a set up.

You asked for evidence, but then you’re all “But it can’t be Catholic evidence. It has to be atheistic evidence”.

#setup.

And your answer could have been: “There are no rights, God did not declare any rights” - which he did not, not even in the Bible. The “Catholic Social Justice Teachings” are simple human concoctions. And that would have been acceptable.

And that would clearly have been a lie.

Not just “ME”, to all the non-Catholics.

Really? Non-Catholics don’t think they should feed the poor?

This is something only Catholics must do?

I would accept your evidence, if there would be any evidence. Actually I simply brought forth an analysis, with which you disagreed (and that is perfectly fine, of course). The trouble is that your disagreement was unfounded.

And evidence was provided.

It just turns out that you wanted a specific spectrum of evidence–something that’s impossible to provide because you’re asking for nonsense–“I want evidence that God has provided, but I’m an atheist so you can’t provide evidence that is God-related”.

 

[Pallas_Athene]

Well, we see it differently, don’t we?

That is no problem. Do you have any evidence that God declared and enforced some rights?

And it is an accurate statement. The US is founded on freedom of religion, civil liberty, and I think there were more founding fathers that were actually Deists.

Yes, you are correct. Alas, many people are not aware of this fact.

Certainly, individuals can choose to be free of religion. Perhaps you claim this right for yourself, though I must stay it is curious that you choose to come to a very religious forum.

If this were not the case, those of us who pay to support your choice to post here would not be enabling you to make statements such as the one at the top of this post. We are supporting your freedom monetarily, materially, civillly and spiritually.

Which I reciprocate. But, you see, we are on a private forum. In the “outside world” the “right” of freedom of conscience, or free practice of religion is very “volatile”, and can be suspended any moment.

Yes, but I do not think that people need to deprive me of my religion in order to be free from it. We can create a society where every individual has the freedom to believe and practice what they choose, without alienating one another.

Of course I agree with you hundred percent. Mutual respect, even if it does not entail mutual acceptance is what would make this world much more acceptable. The concept of “live and let live” is (or should be) a very basic attitude.

I certainly think the First Nations people have this same complaint.

Which reinforces what I wrote.

This is simply a false conclusion.

Please elaborate. And read the next true story.

This post seems to be authored by a disgruntled victim of something.

Personally I was never a “victim”. But I am very cognizant of such events.

Yet another true story. A guy had a simple charter service, transporting passengers from one place to another. One of his passengers had a bunch of cash in his suitcase. The money was confiscated, even though there was no reason to suspect that it was “intended” to be used for purchasing drugs. And then his charter plane was also confiscated on the same “charges”.

There were actually no “charges”. The poor pilot had to spend a lot of time and money to get his lane back. The point is that his property “rights” have been “suspended”, because the government agency wanted to fill up their coffers. We are all potential victims of such overzealous agencies.

 

[PRmerger]

Where can we see those “demonstrations”? Especially the “eternal” consequences? Because - as we all know (or should know) - the rain and the sunshine fall on both the virtuous and the evil ones alike. Not much of a “demonstration”.

Here’s another example of natural consequences of not treating another human being as being made in the image and likeness of God:

It turns out it’s really bad on the psyche to be a torturer–mental health consequences of torturing another human person are destructive and far-reaching
cgu.edu/pdffiles/sbos/costanzo_effects_of_interrogation.pdf

 

[Pallas_Athene]

It just turns out that you wanted a specific spectrum of evidence–something that’s impossible to provide because you’re asking for nonsense–“I want evidence that God has provided, but I’m an atheist so you can’t provide evidence that is God-related”.

You mean that God is unable to provide evidence acceptable to atheists?

 

[PRmerger]

Of course I agree with you hundred percent. Mutual respect, even if it does not entail mutual acceptance is what would make this world much more acceptable.

Mutual respect of persons, yes.

Mutual respect of ideas, NO.

I have NO RESPECT for this idea:

http://forums.catholic-questions.org/attachment.php?attachmentid=20227&d=1403928673

Surely you don’t have respect for this idea, right?

 

[PRmerger]

You mean that God is unable to provide evidence acceptable to atheists?

No.

I mean that you’ve made a demand for evidence that is nonsense.

“I want something that shows that God has given rights, but it can’t be evidence from God because I don’t believe in God.”

But regardless…

Let’s take Catholic Social Teaching.

What is it about it that you object to, vis a vis this discussion?

 

[Pallas_Athene]

Mutual respect of persons, yes.

Mutual respect of ideas, NO.

I have NO RESPECT for this idea:

http://forums.catholic-questions.org/attachment.php?attachmentid=20227&d=1403928673

Surely you don’t have respect for this idea, right?

You got that right!!!

Now… should I be banned, IF I asserted that I have respect for the people who profess to be Catholics… but I have NO respect for Catholicism. Observe the all important “IF”. But of course I am aware that this is a private forum, and I have no “rights” unless they are declared and permitted by the moderators of the forums… what a wonderful example of having no “rights”. Thank you for showing the way.

 

[Pallas_Athene]

No.

So God is able to provide evidence for “rights”, which is acceptable for atheists. Where is that evidence? After all God is supposed to be able to talk to atheists, and make his arguments to be impossible to ignore.

 

[PRmerger]

You got that right!!!

Now… should I be banned, IF I asserted that I have respect for the people who profess to be Catholics… but I have NO respect for Catholicism. Observe the all important “IF”. But of course I am aware that this is a private forum, and I have no “rights” unless they are declared and permitted by the moderators of the forums… what a wonderful example of having no “rights”. Thank you for showing the way.

You got that right.

You are in our house.
You don’t get to insult your host.

So if Fred Phelps were to ring my doorbell, he would not be permitted inside, due to my contempt for his ideas.

Respect for him as a person does NOT have to extend to inviting him into my home.

(NB: the above is rhetorical, given the fact that Phelps has passed on).

 

[PRmerger]

So God is able to provide evidence for “rights”, which is acceptable for atheists. Where is that evidence? After all God is supposed to be able to talk to atheists, and make his arguments to be impossible to ignore.

I have already given you 3.

Here they are again:

1. 
   *]usccb.org/beliefs-and-teachings/what-we-believe/catholic-social-teaching
   
   *]http://forums.catholic-questions.org/attachment.php?attachmentid=22609&d=1448250387
   
   *]cgu.edu/pdffiles/sbos/costanzo_effects_of_interrogation.pdf
   
   Evidence for what happens when you don’t treat the human person with the dignity with which he has been endowed by God.

 

[PRmerger]

After all God is supposed to be able to talk to atheists, and make his arguments to be impossible to ignore.

Er…no. God would never make his arguments “impossible to ignore”.

God is a gentleman and if you wish to ignore his invitation, he will certainly honor that.

There is no “impossible to ignore” regarding saying YES to God.

God has provided a multitude of proofs for his existence.

You are free to ignore them.

Absolutely free.

 

[Pallas_Athene]

You are in our house.
You don’t get to insult your host.

I hope I understand you correctly… The only reason that Catholicism must be respected is that we are in your “territory”. Your views cannot command “respect” on their own, the only reason that they should be respected is that we are in a Catholic territory. Is this what you expressed?

By the way, expressing my disagreement is NOT an “insult” and should not be taken as an “insult”.

So if Fred Phelps were to ring my doorbell, he would not be permitted inside, due to my contempt for his ideas.

So you would have no actual rebuttal of his views, except that he tries to “intrude” onto your territory?

Er…no. God would never make his arguments “impossible to ignore”.

Even when I am ASKING and BEGGING him to provide those arguments?

God is a gentleman and if you wish to ignore his invitation, he will certainly honor that.

I am also a “gentleman”, who humbly asks for actual evidence… which would convince even a staunch skeptic.

There is no “impossible to ignore” regarding saying YES to God.

There isn’t? I was under the impression that God can do anything and everything except logical contradictions. Maybe God is not much of an omnipotent…

God has provided a multitude of proofs for his existence.

When and where?