Nope, the right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures exists. What YOU don't seem to understand is the people who originally wrote this put UNREASONABLE in there for a reason. Scanning your carry on luggage to see if there is a gun or knife or bomb for instance is a REASONABLE level of intrusion to protect the other citizens.
Thanks, that's pretty much been the whole point of this thread. If you deny the roots of what the united state was founded on, if you deny the origins of freedom; even if it is subjective. . . then the premise is, it can just as easily be taken away. For the united states at least, for freedom, liberty, for the rights that Americans hold dear; to keep the rights of the minority beyond the reach of the tyranny of the majority, it must be recognized that our rights are unalienable, and that the founders truly believed they came from a source higher than from the community, or from the State. If we believe that they come from the State, or from powerful groups, they can just as easily be taken away and granted back as privileges. Already the constitution is being subverted, it already isn't being taken seriously, as rights are no longer being viewed as inalienable, and the needs of the State are now seen as supreme to needs, RIGHTS, of the individual. Once people no longer believe that rights are endowed by a creator, they are not respected. If they aren't respected. . . well then, I guess it is all right for the State to torture, assassinate, spy on it's own citizens. . . Oh wait a minute, seems now that Atheism has become more and more a trend in the united states, the immoral acts have been more and more acceptable, and human rights? Well, they're, what was it? Oh yeah, "subjective." After all, the State is more important than individuals. "Rights" are an illusion, yes? Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
Let's assume that's true...this past 80-150 years is the first time in all of human history (or fewer, in cases like the practical right for many to vote in places where bigotry ran deep) that people have generally held the broad basket of rights we now have. So, was every prior historical period "wrong" and we happen to be the first society (ever, including the society Jesus lived in) to get it "right?" Even the Bible says: "Slaves, obey your earthly masters in everything; and do it, not only when their eye is on you and to win their favor, but with sincerity of heart and reverence for the Lord." Colossians 3:22. In fact it makes that basic point more than once, as in: "Slaves, obey your earthly masters with respect and fear, and with sincerity of heart, just as you would obey Christ." Ephesians 6:5 and "You who are slaves must accept the authority of your masters with all respect. Do what they tell you--not only if they are kind and reasonable, but even if they are cruel." 1 Peter 2:18 So is the right not to be enslaved not a "real" right because it's not clear that God endorses it (and clear that the Bible does not)? I'm sure the answer is "of course that is a real right", but where's the evidence that created the right to be free? Many traditions believe that their gods have handed down principles to follow...do you give the same credit to the Hindu Gods for establishing karma as you do to the Christian God? If not, why do the Hindu gods get less deference? All cultures develop a notion of rights, and many ascribe those rights to pronouncement of deities. You can't simply say that one set is to b taken seriously, and the others not, without explaining the difference. Now, for most people (and I suspect you as well) the answer is "but I don't believe in those other gods and imaginary beings can't be the creators of rights" but surely you need to be able to distinguish why your God's pronouncements get more respect than those others. Or do you disagree? If Gandhi quoted from the Bhagavad Gita (and he did) for principles he lived his life by, would you accept that Lord Vishnu actually did invent and passed along to humanity the moral principles contained in the work? A quote saying that God did a certain thing is no proof that God actually did that certain thing.
Both have happened. The right to own slaves was taken away; women were given the right to vote. I am sure you are glad both those things could happen. . . . and, as in the case of the Thirteenth Amendment, that is a good thing. Overall atheists tend to be much more moral than theists. When you have to believe in something because you have thought it through and decided it's worthwhile, you believe it much more strongly than if you are told "do this or you will go to hell." Belief based on rational thought is always stronger than belief based on superstition.
What ever. Sure you have that right. If you attempt to use it in practice at a traffic stop? You are fucked. Ask any black man in the metro area in my state or in Saginaw county or Genesse County. Ask any black man if he gets pulled over for a routine stop, "because he looks suspicious" to refuse having his person searched or his vehicle searched. I swear, you don't live in reality. Police arrest prominent black history scholar for breaking into own home What is reasonable and what is unreasonable seems to be decided by those who are in power and those who have wealth and power.
I certainly agree that religion influenced the rights we now have. That is not to say that God invented the rights though. Religion is a philosophical proposition, much of the content of which is the work of men. If any of it is the work of God, that is not something that we can prove (and if we simply assume that the principles espoused are the work of God because other people believe it, then why should we not accept that the Emperor of Japan is a divine being descended from Amaterasu...as there are plenty of people who have believed that to be true over the past 1,000 years or so). So, yes, religion did influence the U.S. laws that established our rights. Religion was not the only influence (and arguably just one among many). That said, the philosophy of Ancient Greece and Rome also influenced us...we have a modified Roman-style "republic" (the very word is latinate) and we tout the merits of a variation of Greek "democracy", yet clearly what happened is that we took the ideas they had and used them with some modification. The same is true of religion. I would hope the same would have been true for any really good idea that came into the noosphere in which the founding fathers lived, whether it was originally Christian, pagan, Cartesian, Lockean, Montaignian or otherwise.
Yes they can. That's why they are so important to stand up for. OK, I can get that. That's just something they had to say. It makes no difference where you think these rights came from as long as you believe they are legitimate human rights. Many of the founders were deists, so was Thomas Paine, so they didn't believe God actually granted anything personally to anyone. He just set up the universe and let it do it's thing.
@ Esotericist - Why must it be recognized that our rights are unalienable? I dont think that they ever can be, or that its necessary that they are. Our rights CAN and ARE taken away from us, New Labour in the UK passed thousands of small acts that gradually decreased the freedom of the UK people, and talked about more; such as capping speed limits and censoring the internet (neither of which really occured thankfully!). Our rights can be taken away by men but they can equally be maintained by men. It is therefore not on the shoulders of God to ensure that human rights are adhered to but on the shoulders of men. If you believe that human rights are truly worth fighting for then that is what you must do; in parallel, other men will be working and fighting to restrict our freedoms and rights - it is the winner of such struggles that will decide what the majority of people get. If we cannot stand up for what we believe to be right then we do not deserve to have it in the first place, survival of the fittest both in body AND mind, is the only reality.
I don't care about the UK, Canada, Australia, or any other place on the planet, ok? This thread is only directed toward those who still believe in the principles enshrined in the constitution of the united states of America and the Bill of Rights. The constitution was written to protect, not give, its sovereign citizens those rights which were already theirs, forever, once they freed themselves as subjects from the crown. (Twice mind you, and some of us believe this war is not yet over until the City of London is destroyed or the Federal Reserve is dissolved.) If you are still a subject of the crown, you are not a subject of natural law, so this thread does not apply to you. You are necessarily always a subject of Imperial Law, Maritime Law, or Common Law, and never able to lay claim to natural law, go get your own revolution. Of course you, "dont think that they ever can be, or that its necessary that they are. Our rights CAN and ARE taken away from us" My condolences. Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! Perhaps when the next phase of our R[̲̅ə̲̅٨̲̅٥̲̅٦̲̅]uTioN occurs, you will think twice and maybe want to taste freedom?
The Creator of Humanity is our rational thought. So, our rights come from rational thought - our brains.
Wow... I kind of like London... it's an interesting city. Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
@ Esotericist - whoa there, i dont think my geographic location should make my opinion any less credible and when i mentioned uk politics it was as an example. I thought that human rights in general and legislature such as the Bill of Rights are quite applicable to this thread, especially considering that the US Bill of Rights was based heavily on many aspects of the English Bill of Rights from some 100 years previously. Being a subject takes a back seat to say, the European Convention of Human rights as well as the United Nations Universal Declaration of human rights so you are incorrect when you say "You are necessarily always a subject of Imperial Law, Maritime Law, or Common Law, and never able to lay claim to natural law". One third of the delegates who signed the US declaration of independence were from Scottish descent and i think it is no coincidence that they were over-represented in an act that aimed to decrease English power. So to answer your OP, you got your rights from the Scottish Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
Really? I've never been to London, the traditional English capital of the British Empire. But I don't think you really thought that is what I was referring to. Did you? Here's everything you need to get you started. Jewish banishment and The “City” of London Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
Now we have crossed over into conspiracy cuckoo territory. Secret cabals do not run the nefarious corporation that is London and dictate to British Parliament what to do and when, with Jews pulling all the strings behind the scenes. Some may disagree, but I really can't be bothered to set anyone who falls for that straight. It's not worth it. Luckily the topic at hand doesn't require a foray into conspiracies at the Fed or in London. Esotericist, I think you make a logical error in dismissing non-U.S. posters. *If*, as you claim, rights are given to us by God, then those same rights were given to Englishmen and Americans alike. If you think Englishmen don't enjoy them, then that seems to be a challenge to your belief in their universality (unless you have some evidence that God granted rights solely to Americans, that is). You seem to be saying that God gave man rights, and the Crown took them away...but how does a mortal king undo the acts of God, exactly? In any event, you should consider English tradition in looking at the intellectual history of support for American rights in the U.S. As I mentioned, the U.S. Bill of Rights wasn't the first Bill of Rights, the British had one in 1679, and much of it was directly echoed throughout early American history. That ties in directly to Locke's Second Treatise on Government and the Glorious Revolution which it supported. It's simply not the case that Americans were fighting for rights unheard of by the British. We were, in many cases, fighting for rights which Englishmen enjoyed but that parliament was denying to mere "colonists." Isn't the simpler theory that we get rights from the mechanisms of the law, and all the rest (including talk of their being inalienable, granted by God, or even more nebulously, arising under "natural law") is mere rhetoric? It seems to me that is the case.
So, you don’t believe in any inalienable fundamental rights to which a person is inherently entitled simply because she or he is a human being, is this correct? I think you misunderstood me. I never said that they weren’t subjective, nor did I say that we were naturally entitled to them, but I do want them. We are social creatures with natural drives. Although, values have no objective validity, we cannot be valueless. It does not matter whether fundamental rights are natural, or not, because we have agreed that they are useful. Morality is purely a human affair and bound by perspective. There is nothing divine about morality, but so what? It is through our own thoughts and action that we attempt to make sense of the world. I have read that evolution doesn't include an entitlement to happiness but our desires, emotions, and actions serve for our self-preservation, and life itself. Our desire to maximize pleasure and minimize pain does serve a purpose, the continuity of life. You might enjoy this video. In fact, somebody left this comment in the discussion. Harvard: Unalienable Rights with Michael Sandel
Didn't have a clue as to what you were referring to... But now I see. Your reality check has bounced.
The Magna Carta was the first document to wrest the rights of the commoner from the claws of the Royalty and their enforcers, the Catholic and Anglican Churchs. It began the process of establishing the rights of Englishmen and when Englishmen came to the Americas they brought the concept with them. It is INSPITE of everything the Church could do that our Constitution came into being. Many of the original settlers in the US were fleeing religious persecution(by Anglicans and Catholics)and wanted nothing to do with state sponsored religion. GrumpyPlease Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
This is not the nation of my birth. A striking parallel. I see the Chinese bigotry all the time on this forum. I see immigrant and theist bigotry likewise all the time. How many other types of bigotry and blaming do we see among us? Islamaphobia? "Terrorists" as excuses to strip our freedoms? http://www.press.uchicago.edu/Misc/Chicago/511928.html
You have to remember in reading what the founders thought that they had some very Platonic ideas. They believed that things had an objective existence beyond this world, a perfect "form" that was only dimly reflected in what we see here in reality. They believed it was true that "rights" existed independently. In their view, "rights" existed even before man existed, as did "love" and "anger" and "laws". They really believed, as Cicero wrote, that there cannot be different laws in Rome than there is in Athens, or different laws now and in the future, but one eternal and unchangeable law that is valid for all nations and all times. Problem? There are actually are different laws in effect in Athens than there are in Rome. It makes sense that the speed limit in downtown Rome and the speed limit in downtown Athens might be different or that protesters against government nuclear testing might be arrested in France even though that speech would be protected in the U.S. The founders (and Cicero) knew, of course, that laws varied from place to place and time to time, but they saw the "actual law" as imperfect reflections of the "true law" which only God (or in Cicero's case, "the gods") knew. They believed this "one law" was a real thing, and that if it said that coal burning power plants could emit no more than one part per billion sulfur dioxide (had they known what sulfur dioxide was), then that law was eternal and forever, and bound all such power plants the whole world over. If you believe in that, then of course you also believe that "rights" has the same sort of independent existence. Even if the founding generation believed that though, that doesn't make it true. In their time, public mutilation (like having one's nose or hand cut off) and branding with a hot iron were still valid punishments for crimes. In fact in the summer of 1787, in Philadelphia, as the founders debated the Constitution, a woman called Korbmacher was accused of being a witch and killed. That people at the time believed she was a "witch" did not make it true. While many of the ideas they came up with are worth holding on to, we are better off discarding some of the intellectual baggage of their age. The rights they came up with are, by and large, good ones, but their intellectual justification for those rights was flawed (and not itself enshrined in the Constitution). Just as well, as one of those rights was the right to be free of cruel or inhuman punishments, and if the founders view of that right were the end all and be all of it, then we would still be punishing criminals by lopping off body parts or branding them, publicly whipping people, or selling them to private parties as indentured servants (especially children, as that was a common punishment for serious child offenders, and even the 13th amendment allows for involuntary servitude as punishment for a crime). Our sensibilities have moved on in many ways since the 18th century, including that many of us do not believe in the objective reality of laws, rights, witches, etc. Thankfully, the Constitution does not require that we continue in wrong-headed philosophical beliefs just because the founders held them. Their genius was that they enshrined mostly just the good bits of their thinking into the law, and left most of the questionable parts out (or at least made no express reference to them). That leaves us free to accept the good and reject the bad.
