Say Anything Blog

and in that case it is inevitable that government will some day find it expedient to take away what is held by such a title as that

are you saying that the FBI’s illegal domestic spying is evidence that we don’t have these rights since now the gov’t has found it “expedient” to remove those ‘natural rights’ from us… namely the right to be free from illegal search and seizure?

how about the US’s coddling of human rights abusers? more evidence that since we find it expedient to ignore these ideas… they probably don’t exist? furthermore… the simpleton idea that if we don’t push these as ‘naturally occurring’ someone will someday abuse them… is silly. people abuse these rights daily… post-patriot act it occurs apparently whenever expedient. Meuller apologizes but does that mend the rift in ABSOLUTE NATURAL LAW he has opened up?

and what of all the assurances by Bush that the whole thing was to target al Qaeda? ANOTHER BULLSHIT LIE that all you jackasses saddled and rode to the checkered flag. if only you guys would stump that hard for ME when I LIE!

“True law is Reason [???], right and natural, commanding people to fulfill their obligations and prohibiting and deterring them from doing wrong. Its validity is universal; it is immutable and eternal. Its commands and prohibitions apply effectively to good men, and those uninfluenced by them are bad. Any attempt to supersede this law, to repeal any part of it, is sinful; to cancel it entirely is impossible. Neither the Senate nor the Assembly can exempt us from its demands; we need no interpreter or expounder of it but ourselves. There will not be one law at Rome, one at Athens, or one now and one later, but all nations will be subject all the time to this one changeless and everlasting law [???].” (De Re Publica, III, 33.)

are you saying that the FBI’s illegal domestic spying is evidence that we don’t have these rights since now the gov’t has found it “expedient” to remove those ‘natural rights’ from us… namely the right to be free from illegal search and seizure?

to a certain degree it would seem so.

As to your other question and statements, Bush isn’t a true conservative.  He clearly does not have the convictions of our founders.  He was the best thing going and he’s done some great things, especially regarding the economy and pursuing our enemies while keeping us safer at home, but he is no Reagan.

the simpleton idea that if we don’t push these as ‘naturally occurring’ someone will someday abuse them

History has spoken on the matter. And, it is happening to America as we speak.  Hence all the uproar from us conservatives.

Is this the fulfillment of the Founders’ plan? Not exactly. Clearly, the American Revolution, like the French Revolution, is part of a rationalist tradition. But rationalism is an ambiguous term, subtle in its infinite manifestations. For present purposes it is sufficient to identify the critical differences. The American tradition accepted the limits of reason; the European tradition did not.

America’s Constitution provided an 18th Century answer to the question of what to do about the status of the individual and the mode of government. Though the Founders set out to establish good government “from reflection and choice,”(25) they also acknowledged the “limits of reason as applied to constitutional design,”(26) and wisely did not seek to invent the world anew on the basis of abstract principle; instead, they chose to rely on habits, customs, and principles derived from human experience and authenticated by tradition.
.....
There is nothing new, of course, in the idea that the Framers did not buy into the notion of human perfectibility. The political theory upon which our Constitution was organized reflected not an antirationalist conception of human capacity — but a narrower and, in my view, more realist one. It could be characterized as a conception of man after the fall.

-Janice Rogers Brown, Fify Ways

HG
If we have inalienable rights that the founders picked up on and wrote down in the constitution, what the eff happened with all the slavery? It took a war to realize that the blacks should be included as ‘people’ or whatever? Furthermore, if there are objective and/or inalienable rights, why is it that our gov’t and constitution, among many others, honed in on the true nature of them and penned it? Who is this goddamned metaphysical savant in the founders ranks? Also, what would motivate someone to believe these rights actually are existent in the metaphysical machinery? I think its more of a very strong idea for the gov’t to defend and preserve at all costs. Your claim that these rights could predate the existence of humans - based around your belief in a creator - is interesting… how did our founders pick up on this? Why would God make these type of rights if slavery is widespread in the bible and people were justifiably killed en mass simply for not being Christian… i.e. the Philistines. Also, the bible says this:

Then Samson went and caught three hundred foxes; and he took torches, turned the foxes tail to tail, and put a torch between each pair of tails. When he had set the torches on fire, he let the foxes go into the standing grain of the Philistines, and burned up both the shocks and the standing grain, as well as the vineyards and olive groves.

Hmmm. You know… there just might be some fiction in that book. Now we need to do some line drawing. For example, which of the accounts of Jesus’s death is correct? There are lots of inconsistencies. Its made up is why. Don’t go basing your belief set around it and expect to have any arguments. Why Christians even engage in debate and seriously base their ideas and arguments around the bible is beyond me. Look at Neiman. One of older bloggers here, I would gamble, and yet the one who sounds the youngest because he relies on silly, bible-grounded arguments that lead to the conclusion that I hate God. So - I say no metaphysical rights. Some say they exist… like Nozick. The only problem is, Nozick has no argument. He just says they exist. His other stuff has arguments. Disappointing. Personally I think he didn’t want everyone to think he’s a jackass for making the type of fallacy-ridden argument to back up the idea of inalienable rights. They don’t exist. Wake up. Look around. Read your Hobbes.

Boy Sparkie, you sure covered a lot of ground in your comment. 

I’ll start by saying that I begin my observation of a Creator by looking at the world and drawing conclusions from the unique nature of humanity relative the creation.  Intelligence, love, moral conscience, an inherent knowledge of God; couple this with design, force, and the laws of nature; this leads many to the very reasonable and rational conclusion that there is something greater, something embodying perfectly, them all—a master planner. 

Such a Creator is then Supreme.  Supreme authority, power, and wisdom. 

As to inalienable rights?
Moral consciousness bespeaks moral responsibility—hence, inalienable rights. 

As to your claims of inconsistencies in the accounts of Christ’s death—there are none. 

As to slavery, we have it in some form today, it’s called employment.  For a period of time, on a daily or contractual basis, one sells himself to the interest of another for money.  The difference being that at the end of the day, the employee retains ownership of one’s person as one’s own property.  So, in affect, one leases one’s property (person) to another.

Slavery, as practiced in America, is condemned in the bible.  Similar practices were condemned as menstealing—taking one against one’s will and forcibly making one, another’s property. 

Sparkie, I see your side.  I get it, I just don’t buy it.  Just like you disagree with my observations and conclusions. 

Furthermore, if there are objective and/or inalienable rights, why is it that our gov’t and constitution, among many others, honed in on the true nature of them and penned it?

Wisdom.

Who is this goddamned metaphysical savant in the founders ranks?

Back then, they pretty much all accepted natural law and therefore shared a common philosphical perspective.  I know the founders were influenced by many legal scholars and philosophers, among them, Locke, and Blackstone.

As to your claims of inconsistencies in the accounts of Christ’s death—there are none.

Each of the many accounts in the bible is different. C’mon. Read.

HG
So, what about the Middle East? Over there, in order to enforce moral absolutes and laws that are metaphysical truth, one would need an iron fisted type of government. If the population has a certain general morality that does not align with the laws a government has and enforces, the government must either be severely weak of iron-fisted. Iron-fistedness, necessarily, is inconsistent with some of these moral absolutes. So… the question is which is more primary… the morals themselves or the basic form of government? Do you appreciate the paradox or do you need a better explaination?

Each of the many accounts in the bible is different. C’mon. Read.

I have, many times over. None exist.

Do you appreciate the paradox or do you need a better explaination?

I think I do need more Sparkie.  Government exists for the sole purpose of defending inalienable rights by establishing and faithfully executing justice.  A society is responsible to a great degree for the government they have.

HG

I have, many times over. None exist.

You know… there just might be some fiction in that book. Now we need to do some line drawing. For example, which of the accounts of Jesus’s death is correct? There are lots of inconsistencies.

Then you say:

What about the Gospel of Q? Not true because someone decided not to include it in the bible? What about the 50 someadd other gospels?

Which is it Sparkie?  Inconsistencies in the bible or inconsitencies in writings outside of the bible that do not agree with the biblical accounts?
Which is it Sparkie?  Inconsistencies in the biblical accounts of Jesus death, or extra-biblical accounts of Jesus death?

If you’d like a lesson in bibliology, look up Ryrie or Chafer.  If you would like to return to your orignial claim of inconsistencies in the biblical account of Jesus’ death, go right ahead.  So far you haven’t offered any.