TRoaches Posted June 11, 2013 Share Posted June 11, 2013 (edited) "You will have to kill me and my family before you get my guns. Anyone wants to come to my house will get shot in the face. The right to bear arms is my constitutional, God-given right and I will exercise that right till the day I die. What's in this letter is nothing compared to what I've got planned for you."No political party or politician in recent history has advocated shooting a politician, law enforcement officer, or any other civil citizen in the face. Describing this as being even remotely similar to "right-wing rhetoric" is offensive. Shooting people in the face is not a political statement. It is the complete opposite of political discourse. The fact that you read those words and think "Republican" says much about your closed-minded and dogmatic approach to political thought. I you are even slightly familiar with the Republican platform They've crafted a political rhetoric to take their political agenda and force-feed it to American claiming God-given rights rather than rights granted by the government. We already went over the fact that in the our legal system the government does not grant the citizens rights. The citizens are understood to inherently possess their rights, and the government is limited by its own laws in to the extent to which it may infringe upon them. Describing them as "god-given" is not a religious statement as much as a turn of phrase that means "inherent from birth". Even if the use of the word god in this context is a reference to religion there is no reason that an elected official or party cannot invoke their religious beliefs as a basis or justification for their agenda. They are free to do so as a part of their protected right to expression. ETA: That is your opinion. If "LaPierre does not invoke hatred" is only my opinion then, logically speaking, your statement that LaPierre DOES invoke hatred is also just an opinion. Edited June 11, 2013 by TRoaches Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
colourwheel Posted June 11, 2013 Author Share Posted June 11, 2013 (edited) "You will have to kill me and my family before you get my guns. Anyone wants to come to my house will get shot in the face. The right to bear arms is my constitutional, God-given right and I will exercise that right till the day I die. What's in this letter is nothing compared to what I've got planned for you." No political party or politician in recent history has advocated shooting a politician, law enforcement officer, or any other civil citizen in the face. Describing this as being even remotely similar to "right-wing rhetoric" is offensive. Shooting people in the face is not a political statement. It is the complete opposite of political discourse. The fact that you read those words and think "Republican" says much about your closed-minded and dogmatic approach to political thought. You seem to be ingnoring the point that the GOP's platform mentions God 12 times in their rhetoric. You chellenged me to cite a transcript of the content to back my claim... Even if the use of the word god in this context is a reference to religion there is no reason that an elected official or party cannot invoke their religious beliefs as a basis or justification for their agenda. They are free to do so as a part of their protected right to expression. They are free to do so... but invoke religious beliefs will be the downfall for any party when trying to win national elections... invoke religious beliefs only alienates everyone else who doesn't share the same beliefs.... And BTW there is no such thing as "god-given rights" If you don't think rights are given to you by the government you are only fooling yourself.... Edited June 11, 2013 by colourwheel Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TRoaches Posted June 11, 2013 Share Posted June 11, 2013 (edited) You seem to be ingnoring the point that the GOP's platform mentions God 12 times in their rhetoric. You chellenged me to cite a transcript of the content to back my claim... I did not ignore it. I explained it. You ignored my explanation. Your claim was that the letter had a "strong political message" that was associated with right-wing politics. I challenged you to demonstrate a correlation between the letter's content and the right-wing platform. You failed to do this, because no member of any party has ever advocated what the letter advocates. They are free to do so... but invoke religious beliefs will be the downfall for any party when trying to win national elections... invoke religious beliefs only alienates everyone else who doesn't share the same beliefs....If an openly religious person is elected to any office it is because they attracted the most voters, not because they alienated them. Keith Ellison won his last election in a landslide, despite his "alienating" religious beliefs. If you think rights are not given by the government you are only fooling yourself.... The wording of the constitution makes it very clear that it is not granting any rights. It recognizes and protects natural rights by limiting the government's power to infringe upon them. It makes heavy use of words like "shall not be infringed" and "shall make no law". It does not tell you what you can do. Rather, it tells the government what it cannot do. Edited June 11, 2013 by TRoaches Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
colourwheel Posted June 11, 2013 Author Share Posted June 11, 2013 (edited) You seem to be ingnoring the point that the GOP's platform mentions God 12 times in their rhetoric. You chellenged me to cite a transcript of the content to back my claim... I did not ignore it. I explained it. You ignored my explanation. Your claim was that the letter had a "strong political message" that was associated with right-wing politics. I challenged you to demonstrate a correlation between the letter's content and the right-wing platform. You failed to do this, because no member of any party has ever advocated what the letter advocates. I repeat... perhaps I wouldn't even have even suggested right-wing rhetoric had a part in the discussion if there wasn't strong political message in the ricin letters to begin with.... Have you read the letters? Can you cite a transcript of their content that backs your claim? "You will have to kill me and my family before you get my guns. Anyone wants to come to my house will get shot in the face. The right to bear arms is my constitutional, God-given right and I will exercise that right till the day I die. What's in this letter is nothing compared to what I've got planned for you." If you are even slightly familiar with the Republican platform They've crafted a political rhetoric to take their political agenda and force-feed it to American claiming God-given rights rather than rights granted by the government. They have basically brought Religion into politics when It should be completely seperate from governing states. Last year alone The GOP's platform mentions God 12 times unlike the Democratic platform mentioning God zero times. Also it is popularly know the GOP platform is very strong in support against gun control. here is a few example.... "...We offer our Republican vision of a free people using their God-given talents.", " ...God-given individual rights..." , "“. . .the primary role of government is to protect the God-given, inalienable, inherent rights of its citizens. . .” , “. . .defend the law-abiding citizen’s God-given right of self-defense. . .” , “. . .We condemn decisions by activist judges to deny children the opportunity to say the Pledge of Allegiance in its entirety, including “Under God” in public schools. . .” No political party or politician in recent history has advocated shooting a politician, law enforcement officer, or any other civil citizen in the face. Describing this as being even remotely similar to "right-wing rhetoric" is offensive. Shooting people in the face is not a political statement. It is the complete opposite of political discourse. The fact that you read those words and think "Republican" says much about your closed-minded and dogmatic approach to political thought. You ignored my explanation totally. I never challeged you to explain anything about what was written in the letters, but you went off in a complete tangent about how politicians don't advocated shooting other politicians... If an openly religious person is elected to any office it is because they attracted the most voters, not because they alienated them. Keith Ellison won his last election in a landslide, despite his "alienating" religious beliefs. Was I ever suggesting a politician who invoke religious beliefs won't ever win an election? no! :rolleyes: If you think rights are not given by the government you are only fooling yourself.... The wording of the constitution makes it very clear that it is not granting any rights. It recognizes and protects natural rights by limiting the government's power to infringe upon them. It makes heavy use of words like "shall not be infringed" and "shall make no law". It does not tell you what you can do. Rather, it tells the government what it cannot do. Wasn't talking about the constitution in general.... sure the constitution recognizes and protects natural rights, But only the government grants you right to begin with... Edited June 11, 2013 by colourwheel Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
juderodney Posted June 11, 2013 Share Posted June 11, 2013 (edited) ...but only the government grants you right to begin with... Wow... just... wow... Here's a shocker, colourwheel: governments do not grant rights, they take them away! That's why the framers of the U.S. constitution worded the Bill of Rights the way they did. They recognized that simple truth and instead of saying "The people shall have..." in the first amendment, they said Congress shall pass no law ..." They're not words that grant freedom; they're words that restrict the government from taking them away. Edited June 11, 2013 by juderodney Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TRoaches Posted June 11, 2013 Share Posted June 11, 2013 but invoke religious beliefs will be the downfall for any party when trying to win national elections... Was I ever suggesting a politician who invoke religious beliefs won't ever win an election? no! :rolleyes:I'll just leave these here, because they sort of speak for themselves.... sure the constitution recognizes and protects natural rights, But only the government grants you right to begin with... I provided a link so that you could learn the difference between natural and legal rights, but I can see that you did not bother to read up on it before replying. A natural right is one that exists outside or without the authority of a government. Natural rights are believed to exist regardless of what jurisdiction one is in, or in the lack of any legal authority at all. If all governments were abolished tomorrow the concept of natural rights would still exist, but the only protection that one would have against a violation of their natural rights would be their own persuasion or use of force. It is more of a philosophical concept than a legal one, but it is the basis of much of our legal system and many others around the world. A legal right is one that is codified and upheld by the government. A natural right can be codified as protected under law, but it does not require a law to exist. For example, if slavery is legal in a society then a slave is legal property and has no legal right to liberty. Any attempt by a third party to liberate that slave is, according to the law, a violation of the legal property rights of the slave's owner. The claim of a natural right to liberty was a central theme in abolitionist theory. It was cited by the movement in legal arguments against the slavery laws on the basis that they violated natural rights, and that these natural rights are of a higher order and supercede the legal property rights of the slave owners. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
colourwheel Posted June 11, 2013 Author Share Posted June 11, 2013 (edited) governments do not grant rights, they take them away! I don't even know why I am arguing over this.... you seem to clearly have the same notion TRoaches has on this... sure the constitution recognizes and protects natural rights, But only the government grants you right to begin with... I provided a link so that you could learn the difference between natural and legal rights, but I can see that you did not bother to read up on it before replying. Now this is getting rediculous... Of course I was always talking about legal rights. But When people use the the term "God-Given right" in reference to the right to bare arms that is of course a legal right, not a "god-given right".... :teehee: “. . .defend the law-abiding citizen’s God-given right of self-defense. . .” - unnamed politician "The right to bear arms is my constitutional, God-given right and I will exercise that right till the day I die." - ricin mailer Edited June 11, 2013 by colourwheel Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TRoaches Posted June 11, 2013 Share Posted June 11, 2013 How about a named politician? Here's a good example: "It is always such an honor for us to spend this holiday with members of our military and your extraordinary families. All of you represent what is best in America. You serve under our proud flag. You and your families sacrifice more than most of us can ever know -- all in defense of those God-given rights that were first put to paper 236 years ago: life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness." -- President Barack Obama It seems that the president agrees that our rights are not granted by the government, but are inherently granted to us by virtue of our existence. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
colourwheel Posted June 11, 2013 Author Share Posted June 11, 2013 (edited) How about a named politician? Here's a good example: "It is always such an honor for us to spend this holiday with members of our military and your extraordinary families. All of you represent what is best in America. You serve under our proud flag. You and your families sacrifice more than most of us can ever know -- all in defense of those God-given rights that were first put to paper 236 years ago: life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness." -- President Barack Obama It seems that the president agrees that our rights are not granted by the government, but are inherently granted to us by virtue of our existence. life liberty and the pursuit of happiness are unalienable rights, not legal rights :rolleyes: Edited June 11, 2013 by colourwheel Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TRoaches Posted June 11, 2013 Share Posted June 11, 2013 Correct, but the purpose of law is to protect those basic natural rights and the rights derived from them. Legal rights are derived from natural rights, which we inherently possess but may be unable to protect without the aid of a government. When the law codifies a legal right it is not granting us something that did not exist before, rather it is attempting to offer protection against infringement of our rights to ensure that we continue to possess what we already had. Also, it is worth noting that you by using the two phrases interchangeably you seem to indicate that "god-given" and "inalienable" are synonymous terms. This is exactly what I said earlier in response to your earlier false assertion that politicians who use the phrase "god-given" are invoking a religious justification for their policies. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now