Glen Beck is Wrong!

Off Topic Politics & World Issues
21

[quote]yorik wrote:
Dammit. Leave it to Bill Roberts to find the fatal flaw. Actually, I included God in my “theory” to make it palatable to the God-ists while keeping the premise that rights are purely a worldly concept. The real flaw is that we would all have to agree to the obligations, and we’re back in the worldly view of rights. OK, maybe that doesn’t work.

There’s another side to this philosophical coin. If rights are purely human constructs, do you have no rights until granted so? Or do you have all rights until they are taken away?

For that matter, what is the impact of having a “right”? Does that mean things must be provided to you? Are rights inherently free? Or does it mean things cannot be taken away from you?

I remember one of Robert Heinlein’s more didactic books (don’t remember which one) in which he hypothesizes that every right has an accompanying obligation. There’s something appealing to that idea.

This is hard. No wonder the Congress can’t figure it out. Time to dig out the philosophy books. Maybe the Federalist Papers too.[/quote]

Read Two Treatises of Government by John Locke

22

[quote]yorik wrote:
Usually I like most of Glen Beck’s viewpoints but this one today really got to me. (I didn’t see the whole segment, so I might have misinterpreted it.)

Apparently Glen Beck thinks our rights come from God. As a corollary, eliminating God from the equation gives the government full control over our rights. Well, Glen is wrong. Our rights do NOT come from God, and yes, the government has full control of our rights (unless the citizens prevent that.)

I argue that rights are purely human concepts. There are rights that we agree are inalienable, but they don’t come from God. They come from our mutual agreement that they are inalienable. Rights are a product of civilization. They are agreements between people, period. They are implemented by governments.

As an example, suppose your boat capsizes in the middle of the ocean and you’re floating, surrounded by sharks. (An old example, admittedly.) Where is your right to life? Chances are you’re simply going to die, supposed right to life be damned. The sharks don’t give a damn about your rights; they’re hungry.

If rights are inalienable, then cavemen (assuming you believe in cavemen) would have rights. Did they have rights to life, liberty and pursuit of happiness? Did they know they had rights? What good did those rights do for them? None. As for healthcare, they probably simply died if they got an infection or broke a leg.

So if God (assuming you believe in God) did not give us rights, why do we think he did? I contend that we’re confusing rights with obligations; that’s right, God gave humanity OBLIGATIONS.

That’s right. He endowed us with obligations, not rights. The Founding Fathers interpreted our obligations to include protecting the life, liberty and pursuit of happiness of others. We fulfill those obligations by agreeing upon rights, and preventing governments from interfering with those rights. The Constitution was created to prevent the U.S. Government from interfering with the rights of individuals. We also have an obligation to continue to control our government, which we have done a very poor job of. That is a point on which I agree with Glen Beck.

Do better next time, Glen.[/quote]

To many long, I did not read it. And Glenn (two n’s) Beck is a Mormon point needs no further discussion.

So. guess what the piety people like to put a lot of focus on the fact that God is who gave them their rights. However, even Catholic Monks/Priests/Scholars/Saints (the classic liberals in the 19th Century in America usually were Catholics and Episcopalian Protestants who wished government not to tell citizens how to live their life like the piety sect who wished to save everyone through government enforcement) have admitted that they cannot prove where these “natural rights” came from. The scholars, however, presume it comes from God, but none the less are established for all people and are called natural rights because of that.

23

[quote]pushharder wrote:
The main problem with your argument, Yorik, is it directly conflicts with the view of the Founding Fathers that you cite in your post.

You can’t be intellectually honest when you mention, “The Founding Fathers interpreted our obligations…” in an effort to bolster your case and neglect to mention the overwhelming evidence that practically every one of the Fathers that wrote on this subject expressed a belief in God-given rights.

Now you have every right to disagree with them but don’t do so by being an implicit historical revisionist.[/quote]

This is an absolutely unassailable point. There was that whole “endowed by their creator” and “divine providence” thing that Jefferson, one of the least religious of the founders, wrote into the DOI. Not to mention a mountain of writings to the same effect from just about every one of the rest.

24

Rights come from reality, i.e. our nature as human beings. Not from other humans.

25

[quote]belligerent wrote:
Rights come from reality, i.e. our nature as human beings. Not from other humans.[/quote]

I see what you’re saying. Unfortunately I believe that all of our rights come from whichever society we live in. Take a baby and raise him in a specific environment, and he will reflect his beliefs from the stimulus he receives. If our rights were handed by God, that is to say without a doubt that at one time, God believed a black man was worth 2/3 the value of a white man.

26

[quote]spyoptic wrote:

[quote]belligerent wrote:
Rights come from reality, i.e. our nature as human beings. Not from other humans.[/quote]

I see what you’re saying. Unfortunately I believe that all of our rights come from whichever society we live in. Take a baby and raise him in a specific environment, and he will reflect his beliefs from the stimulus he receives. If our rights were handed by God, that is to say without a doubt that at one time, God believed a black man was worth 2/3 the value of a white man.[/quote]

I think you confuse Natural Law, and what humans believe but nice try.

27

Very well said.

The only Laws of God (I hate that word) Gods is much better is the Laws of nature, and in the laws of nature the strong survive, Man Government Created rites to avoid Chaos.

28

[quote]spyoptic wrote:

[quote]belligerent wrote:
Rights come from reality, i.e. our nature as human beings. Not from other humans.[/quote]

I see what you’re saying. Unfortunately I believe that all of our rights come from whichever society we live in. Take a baby and raise him in a specific environment, and he will reflect his beliefs from the stimulus he receives. If our rights were handed by God, that is to say without a doubt that at one time, God believed a black man was worth 2/3 the value of a white man.[/quote]

You are confusing Natural Rights with the US Constitution. All Natural Rights are in the US Constitution, but everything in the US Constitution is not a Natural Right. Yes, someone raised in a different society may not be aware of their Natural Rights, and many governments routinely violate their citizens (or more accurately, subjects) Natural Rights, but that does not change the fact that they have those rights, due only to the fact that they exist as humans.

29

[quote]belligerent wrote:
Rights come from reality, i.e. our nature as human beings. Not from other humans.[/quote]

How so? Our “nature” as human beings seems to be to compete for resources to survive, including killing our competitors. I guess from that point of view, our only rights are to survive and reproduce.

30

[quote]yorik wrote:

[quote]belligerent wrote:
Rights come from reality, i.e. our nature as human beings. Not from other humans.[/quote]

How so? Our “nature” as human beings seems to be to compete for resources to survive, including killing our competitors. I guess from that point of view, our only rights are to survive and reproduce.[/quote]

Yes it is, that’s exactly why the idea of Natural Rights gives you the right (by the mere fact of your existence, having nothing to do with what society you live in or what government you live under) to defend your life and liberty with violence if necessary.

31

[quote]yorik wrote:

[quote]belligerent wrote:
Rights come from reality, i.e. our nature as human beings. Not from other humans.[/quote]

How so? Our “nature” as human beings seems to be to compete for resources to survive, including killing our competitors. I guess from that point of view, our only rights are to survive and reproduce.[/quote]
Growl!

Evolution is the correlation between traits and procreation, and the human reproduction process is too gradual and cumbersome for us to wander around like rogues and succeed as a species. Imagine yourself as an early man, tasked to fend for your increasingly immobile woman and unborn child. Nine months without agriculture, expending calories like a madman, always watching for the flicker of some meager prey. She’s hungry and your ribs are showing and you’re crouching in the undergrowth with a sharp stick, like a winner. If the weather is bad you can’t hunt, and if you can’t hunt you can’t eat, and a run of bad luck can weaken your immune system. Oh, and look after your teeth. Finally the baby comes out, and nothing changes, except now the kid is being carried on the outside of her body – assuming they both survived the birth.

Now start to think about the conveniences of tribal life. The division of labor and cooperative hunting and gathering. The free time to use creatively, perhaps discovering how seeds grow or what plants have medicinal properties. Maybe just experimenting with different knots and building materials. Living in a society means that these technological leaps are passed on. A solitary hunter wouldn’t have enough downtime to invent the bow and arrow, but I digress. Think of the support structure if you were to become ill or injured, and the wonderful notion of your child having playmates. Now think about what happens to selfish, thieving tribesmen.

It is in our nature to be decent to our fellow travelers. Those who cannot empathize don’t know how to help others and fall out of favor. Those who can empathize are reluctant to do harm, even in their own petty interests. Empathy is the ability to imagine yourself in the place of another, and it is a necessary trait to survive – genetically speaking. Since humanity is a social creature with no real predators, survival of the fittest is often a popularity contest.

This is relevant to the thread, too! Empathy is the spirit of morality, and morality is the motive behind the creation of a punishable code of conduct, better known today as a legal system.

What are rights except a code of conduct for government? Albeit a nonpunishable one.

I would like now to conclude that no supernatural explanation is required, but that would be blasphemous.

Apparently.

32

[quote]pushharder wrote:
The main problem with your argument, Yorik, is it directly conflicts with the view of the Founding Fathers that you cite in your post. You can’t be intellectually honest when you mention, “The Founding Fathers interpreted our obligations…” in an effort to bolster your case and neglect to mention the overwhelming evidence that practically every one of the Fathers that wrote on this subject expressed a belief in God-given rights.

Now you have every right to disagree with them but don’t do so by being an implicit historical revisionist.[/quote]

The majority of the founding fathers weren’t exactly “religious.” It’s pretty widely believed that most of them were just christian on the surface like most politicians seem to be today. I’m sure attending church was just a social event to most of them.

And what better way to get a whole bunch of disaffected protestants to be more conducive to the fledgling government than to infuse their God into it? To say that God will be included in the official papers that founded the nation? So, basically their “views” on God-given rights served a purpose rather than being completely faith-driven.

OT: Since the government actually provides these rights and God has no recent record of actively intervening to enforce such rights… it’s all pretty moot at this point. God is either content with the current level of human rights, doesn’t care, or doesn’t exist.

33

[quote]pushharder wrote:
The main problem with your argument, Yorik, is it directly conflicts with the view of the Founding Fathers that you cite in your post. You can’t be intellectually honest when you mention, “The Founding Fathers interpreted our obligations…” in an effort to bolster your case and neglect to mention the overwhelming evidence that practically every one of the Fathers that wrote on this subject expressed a belief in God-given rights.

Now you have every right to disagree with them but don’t do so by being an implicit historical revisionist.[/quote]

When have you seen evidence that our Four Fatheres believed in God? Like actual fact not just what some people put in our history books? Besides Jefferson and Adams I wasn’t aware that anyone else had stong beliefs in that way

35

[quote]pushharder wrote:

[quote]blake2616 wrote:

[quote]pushharder wrote:
The main problem with your argument, Yorik, is it directly conflicts with the view of the Founding Fathers that you cite in your post. You can’t be intellectually honest when you mention, “The Founding Fathers interpreted our obligations…” in an effort to bolster your case and neglect to mention the overwhelming evidence that practically every one of the Fathers that wrote on this subject expressed a belief in God-given rights.

Now you have every right to disagree with them but don’t do so by being an implicit historical revisionist.[/quote]

The majority of the founding fathers weren’t exactly “religious…blah, blah and more blah…”[/quote]
Misdirection play. Even though I believe you’re wrong I’m not headed down that rabbit trail at this time.

What did I say? Read it again - “Practically every one of the Fathers that wrote on this subject expressed a belief in God-given rights.” You want to refute that statement? Have at it.[/quote]

Yes, they did write on God-given rights, but they didn’t believe it to the same extent that they wrote it. So, you aren’t wrong, per se. Beck is, though. He sees it only through the eyes of a religion touting man. This then gives him fuel for the things he says. In the context of what Beck said, your statement is wrong. On its own as a refutation of the OP, it’s okay, because you didn’t cite any motivation for the founding fathers. You win some, you lose some, I suppose.

37

[quote]blake2616 wrote:

[quote]pushharder wrote:

[quote]blake2616 wrote:

[quote]pushharder wrote:
The main problem with your argument, Yorik, is it directly conflicts with the view of the Founding Fathers that you cite in your post. You can’t be intellectually honest when you mention, “The Founding Fathers interpreted our obligations…” in an effort to bolster your case and neglect to mention the overwhelming evidence that practically every one of the Fathers that wrote on this subject expressed a belief in God-given rights.

Now you have every right to disagree with them but don’t do so by being an implicit historical revisionist.[/quote]

The majority of the founding fathers weren’t exactly “religious…blah, blah and more blah…”[/quote]
Misdirection play. Even though I believe you’re wrong I’m not headed down that rabbit trail at this time.

What did I say? Read it again - “Practically every one of the Fathers that wrote on this subject expressed a belief in God-given rights.” You want to refute that statement? Have at it.[/quote]

Yes, they did write on God-given rights, but they didn’t believe it to the same extent that they wrote it. So, you aren’t wrong, per se. Beck is, though. He sees it only through the eyes of a religion touting man. This then gives him fuel for the things he says. In the context of what Beck said, your statement is wrong. On its own as a refutation of the OP, it’s okay, because you didn’t cite any motivation for the founding fathers. You win some, you lose some, I suppose.[/quote]
Let’s also point out that the deist concept of God isn’t pious or submissive, unlike Beck’s attribution.

To a deist, the phrase God-given would have meant: granted by existence.

40

[quote]pushharder wrote:

[quote]blake2616 wrote:

[quote]pushharder wrote:

[quote]blake2616 wrote:

[quote]pushharder wrote:
The main problem with your argument, Yorik, is it directly conflicts with the view of the Founding Fathers that you cite in your post. You can’t be intellectually honest when you mention, “The Founding Fathers interpreted our obligations…” in an effort to bolster your case and neglect to mention the overwhelming evidence that practically every one of the Fathers that wrote on this subject expressed a belief in God-given rights.

Now you have every right to disagree with them but don’t do so by being an implicit historical revisionist.[/quote]

The majority of the founding fathers weren’t exactly “religious…blah, blah and more blah…”[/quote]
Misdirection play. Even though I believe you’re wrong I’m not headed down that rabbit trail at this time.

What did I say? Read it again - “Practically every one of the Fathers that wrote on this subject expressed a belief in God-given rights.” You want to refute that statement? Have at it.[/quote]

Yes, they did write on God-given rights, but they didn’t believe it to the same extent that they wrote it…[/quote]

Oh good grief, you’re quite the speculator. Maybe you should be spending your time at the Chicago Board of trade buying and selling pork belly futures instead of here at T-Nation arguing that the “Four Fatheres” (as Junior put it) were disingenuous bastards that said one thing but meant another.

Do I need to face palm you too?[/quote]

Bastards? No, I have no problem with how some of them acted. Is it really so hard to believe the founders were this way? I have read several historians that speculate this was the case. And a few founders were quoted that faith was a good way to influence the people or that without faith the country would fail/struggle, franklin was one I think. Most of this would be hard to verify considering the lack of journalism. And most of my argument is to shed light on the difference in the way that the Beck and founders term God-given rights.