Do rights come from God?

103 views
Skip to first unread message

mm

unread,
Feb 2, 2016, 1:40:23 PM2/2/16
to
"Our rights come from God and not from the government."

That's what some of the Republican candidates for Prez keep saying.
Cruz and/or Rubio said it this morning.

But we discussed this here some time ago and found that Judaism only
provides a few rights and only indirectly. I forget the example
used, but for example, if everyone has a duty to tithe the produce for
the benefit of the Leviim, then one might say that the Leviim have a
right to the tithe, although I don't think that is written anywhere.
But maybe it's implied.

If people have a duty not to steal, then maybe that implies a right to
own private property. Same comments.

Etc.

1) Is this what the candidates are referring to? 2) or do they
misunderstand what the Tanach says? 3) or is there something in the
Xian bible that says more directly that people have rights?

If the answer is 3, can you tell me what the somethings are? I think
once it's found there we could check Torah and see if there's anything
even somewhat similar, and I'd like to do that, but if you can't get
the answer past moderation, then please email me.

Giorgies E Kepipesiom

unread,
Feb 2, 2016, 3:10:57 PM2/2/16
to
On Tuesday, February 2, 2016 at 1:40:23 PM UTC-5, googy wrote:
> "Our rights come from God and not from the government."

From the US Declaration of Independence:

"...the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitle them
"...they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness"

So, it appears that rights are originally granted by God, according to the USA founding document. The function of government is to secure those God-given rights:

"to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men"

GEK

Herman Rubin

unread,
Feb 2, 2016, 3:12:20 PM2/2/16
to
On 2016-02-02, mm <mm2...@bigfoot.com> wrote:
> "Our rights come from God and not from the government."

> That's what some of the Republican candidates for Prez keep saying.
> Cruz and/or Rubio said it this morning.

> But we discussed this here some time ago and found that Judaism only
> provides a few rights and only indirectly. I forget the example
> used, but for example, if everyone has a duty to tithe the produce for
> the benefit of the Leviim, then one might say that the Leviim have a
> right to the tithe, although I don't think that is written anywhere.
> But maybe it's implied.

> If people have a duty not to steal, then maybe that implies a right to
> own private property. Same comments.

> Etc.

> 1) Is this what the candidates are referring to? 2) or do they
> misunderstand what the Tanach says? 3) or is there something in the
> Xian bible that says more directly that people have rights?

1: Who knows? 2: Yes. 3: Definitely not.

In ancient times, there was no separation of church and state. In
Tanakh, Nehemiah kicks the Gentile merchants out of the towns on
Shabbath. But the Captivity taught the Jews tolerance, which they
had under the Chaldeans, and later under the Persians.

Sensible empires did allow regions to keep their religions, possibly
with some modifications to the base state of the empire. But I do not
know of any ancient separation. The Christian and Muslim states were
quite opposed to many religions, to the extent of using violemnce against
their believers.

As to God-given rights, these are at best by interpretation. Marx has
been misinterpreted; Seneca ex;ressed a similar view of religion, with
a stronger consequence.

> If the answer is 3, can you tell me what the somethings are? I think
> once it's found there we could check Torah and see if there's anything
> even somewhat similar, and I'd like to do that, but if you can't get
> the answer past moderation, then please email me.

The first clear opinion of separation of church and state was that
given by Roger Williams in 1640, and he used the expression. It
took hold in the latter half of the 18th century. and was given
voice by Jefferson, Madison, Franklin, Adams, Paine, Locke, and others.
AFAIK, it was Jefferson who introduced the expression that rights
were given by the Creator, in the Declaration of Independence. But
other than life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness, he enumerated
no others.


--
This address is for information only. I do not claim that these views
are those of the Statistics Department or of Purdue University.
Herman Rubin, Department of Statistics, Purdue University
hru...@stat.purdue.edu Phone: (765)494-6054 FAX: (765)494-0558

Shelly

unread,
Feb 2, 2016, 5:23:42 PM2/2/16
to
Time, place, context. Yes, that is what it says. If it were written
today, the use of "God" would not probably not have been included.

--
Shelly

henry.dot.goodman.at.virgin.net

unread,
Feb 2, 2016, 6:46:00 PM2/2/16
to
Don't understand that. Too many nots
Henry Goodman

Beach Runner

unread,
Feb 2, 2016, 8:18:13 PM2/2/16
to
The founding document is indeed a wonderful document. But it is not
a religious document, the ideas are human created and man made.

Treating the Declaration and Constitution as anything but documents is absurd, yet many people treat them as if they are holy.

They were written for the most part but rich aristocrats, most of which
owned, bought, sold and abused slaves, and more concerned with their own
upper class aristocracy than if they were ruled by the British.

The common people certainly didn't care if they were ruled by rich
white colonists or rich white Britians. The story of the American Revolution is a fairy tale. It wasn't even won by the US, it was won
for the most part by the French. Thanks to Ben Franklin. When the
British surrendered, there were more French troops on the field of battle and the British ships were blockaded by the French. The British general tried to surrender to the French General, but as the ultimate humiliation,
he was made to surrender to Washington.

A really great history book is a Peoples History of the US, 1492 to Current,
(which was 1980) by Howard Zinn. He was fired for writing it, as it was controversial and not politically correct, but won the book of the year award and is required reading in many history classes today. It tells the
US history from the view of the slaves, the solders, the farmers, the workers in the factories, the common people rather than the few rich leaders. Highly recommended.

Even Thomas Jefferson, responsible for so many of the "wonderful holy statements" not only had slaves, he raped them and had children by them.
While he freed them upon his death, few were left as he had sold most of them before he died. What a hypocrite. At least he recognized that the
constitution was man made and imperfect and should be re-written every number of years.

So, I would hardly call rights came from G-d based on documents created
by founding fathers.

Shelly

unread,
Feb 3, 2016, 8:57:21 AM2/3/16
to
Drop the first one.

--
Shelly

SolomonW

unread,
Feb 3, 2016, 9:07:39 AM2/3/16
to
On Tue, 2 Feb 2016 18:46:58 +0000 (UTC), mm wrote:

> But we discussed this here some time ago and found that Judaism only
> provides a few rights and only indirectly. I forget the example
> used, but for example, if everyone has a duty to tithe the produce for
> the benefit of the Leviim, then one might say that the Leviim have a
> right to the tithe, although I don't think that is written anywhere.
> But maybe it's implied.

Naboth the Jezreelite story shows that they have a right to a fair trial
and a right to property.


malcolm...@btinternet.com

unread,
Feb 3, 2016, 9:08:32 AM2/3/16
to
On Tuesday, February 2, 2016 at 6:40:23 PM UTC, googy wrote:
>
> But we discussed this here some time ago and found that Judaism only
> provides a few rights and only indirectly. I forget the example
> used, but for example, if everyone has a duty to tithe the produce for
> the benefit of the Leviim, then one might say that the Leviim have a
> right to the tithe, although I don't think that is written anywhere.
> But maybe it's implied.
>
There's also the right to glean, the right of Hebrew slaves to go free,
the discharge of debts, the cities of refuge. There's even a right
for an ox to munch the sheaves whilst working at the threshing
machine.

Jesus didn't pick this up. He had no interest in a "human rights"
narrative, and the spiritual emphasis of the NT is elsewhere.

Yisroel Markov

unread,
Feb 3, 2016, 7:42:13 PM2/3/16
to
AFAIK, in Old English the word "right" had the connotation of
"privilege granted by liege lord, often against his will." The authors
of the Declaration consciously propounded a revolutionary idea: That
certain rights are so necessary to the function of a decent society
that they must be placed beyond the reach of earthly rulers. Thus
"endowed by their Creator", to invoke the highest possible authority.

Without God, what authority could they invoke today?
--
Yisroel "Godwrestler Warriorson" Markov - Boston, MA Member
www.reason.com -- for a sober analysis of the world DNRC
--------------------------------------------------------------------
"Judge, and be prepared to be judged" -- Ayn Rand

topazgalaxy

unread,
Feb 3, 2016, 8:22:51 PM2/3/16
to
On Tuesday, February 2, 2016 at 1:40:23 PM UTC-5, googy wrote:
Perhaps the true intent of our forefathers years ago in the USA was to reduce or eliminate excessive interference of the government in their lives and reduce the power of the government. So they asked themselves "what source could legitimately have more power than the government/King?"
By saying liberty and the pursuit of happiness was a right given by God, well,
that was way of indicating that the power of the government was limited.
Also, separation of church and state would be important to make sure that the government could not have a God-President. (like Pharaoh in ancient Egypt)

Also look at what happened to the Jews when the Hasmoneans were in power...too much power concentrated in the hands of too few.

Also, when a government declares that a group of people have a "right" that means logically that someone has a duty to provide that right or protect it.

So our early leaders were saying "God gave us these rights and YOU, the government have a duty to protect these rights."



Shelly

unread,
Feb 3, 2016, 10:26:22 PM2/3/16
to
On 2/3/2016 7:48 PM, Yisroel Markov wrote:
> On Tue, 2 Feb 2016 22:30:17 +0000 (UTC), Shelly
> <shel...@thevillages.net> said:
>
>> On 2/2/2016 3:17 PM, Giorgies E Kepipesiom wrote:
>>> On Tuesday, February 2, 2016 at 1:40:23 PM UTC-5, googy wrote:
>>>> "Our rights come from God and not from the government."
>>>
>>> From the US Declaration of Independence:
>>>
>>> "...the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitle them
>>> "...they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness"
>>>
>>> So, it appears that rights are originally granted by God, according to the USA founding document. The function of government is to secure those God-given rights:
>>>
>>> "to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men"
>>>
>>> GEK
>>
>> Time, place, context. Yes, that is what it says. If it were written
>> today, the use of "God" would not probably not have been included.
>
> AFAIK, in Old English the word "right" had the connotation of
> "privilege granted by liege lord, often against his will." The authors
> of the Declaration consciously propounded a revolutionary idea: That
> certain rights are so necessary to the function of a decent society
> that they must be placed beyond the reach of earthly rulers. Thus
> "endowed by their Creator", to invoke the highest possible authority.
>
> Without God, what authority could they invoke today?

The individual.

--
Shelly

malcolm...@btinternet.com

unread,
Feb 4, 2016, 9:22:13 AM2/4/16
to
On Thursday, February 4, 2016 at 12:42:13 AM UTC, Yisroel Markov wrote:
> On Tue, 2 Feb 2016 22:30:17 +0000 (UTC), Shelly
>
> AFAIK, in Old English the word "right" had the connotation of
> "privilege granted by liege lord, often against his will." The authors
> of the Declaration consciously propounded a revolutionary idea: That
> certain rights are so necessary to the function of a decent society
> that they must be placed beyond the reach of earthly rulers. Thus
> "endowed by their Creator", to invoke the highest possible authority.
>
> Without God, what authority could they invoke today?
>
That's basically what a right is. My uncle's regiment had the right to march
through London with bayonets fixed. Other regiments must unfix their
bayonets when marching through the capital.
But that clearly not a "human right", and it only makes sense in the context
of a government firmly in charge of the capital.

Things like the right to a fair trial make sense. If someone is accused of a crime,
he ought to be able to put his side of the story before a court. But when law
and order breaks down, the order goes out "looters will be shot on sight"
and the officer in charge on the point takes a snap decision whether someone
is a looter or not. That's a last resort, it's admitting that things are near breakdown,
but sometime it is necessary to admit that.

Fred Goldstein

unread,
Feb 4, 2016, 10:33:41 AM2/4/16
to
On 2/3/2016 7:48 PM, Yisroel Markov wrote:
...
>> Time, place, context. Yes, that is what it says. If it were written
>> today, the use of "God" would not probably not have been included.
>
> AFAIK, in Old English the word "right" had the connotation of
> "privilege granted by liege lord, often against his will." The authors
> of the Declaration consciously propounded a revolutionary idea: That
> certain rights are so necessary to the function of a decent society
> that they must be placed beyond the reach of earthly rulers. Thus
> "endowed by their Creator", to invoke the highest possible authority.
>
> Without God, what authority could they invoke today?
>
The inherency of Human Rights. This is the basic notion that humans are
inherently worthy of rights, and are not property or slaves whose rights
must be granted by anyone else.

Many of the Founding Fathers were Deists: They accepted that there was
once a creator-god who created the world, but then he left it to us to
manage. It was close to being agnostic. They were not churchy people: A
lot of very religious Brits came over in the XVII, but after that little
kerfuffle in Salem, the reputation of the clergy went down, and the
XVIII was a secular century. When the industrial revolution and the
other huge technological leaps of the early XIX disrupted the lives of
the peasantry, many sought solace in religion, and a huge revivalist
movement re-Christianized much of the US in and around the 1830s. That's
the era that today's religious right is trying to recreate.

Yisroel Markov

unread,
Feb 4, 2016, 11:32:39 AM2/4/16
to
On Thu, 4 Feb 2016 03:32:59 +0000 (UTC), Shelly
Not quite the same oomph, don't you think? Besides, we have plenty of
people who believe that the individual is to be subordinated to the
community. (Consider all the folks willing to vote for Sanders.)
Occasionally those people win political power, and then you have
places like the USSR. But even in the minority they have an effect
worldwide. To them, the individual is no authority.

IOW, without referring to God, neither yesterday nor today would the
Declaration of Independence be nearly as powerful a document.

Shelly

unread,
Feb 4, 2016, 1:28:16 PM2/4/16
to
We will have to simply agree to disagree. To me "It is fundamental that
people have certain inalienable rights. Among them are life, liberty,
and the pursuit of happiness".

Seems rather powerful to me with plenty of oomph.


--
Shelly

Herman Rubin

unread,
Feb 4, 2016, 2:11:50 PM2/4/16
to
It does not state tbat the rights come from statements of God,
but that they are part of our biological structure. An atheist
would say that they are a natural result of our creation process.

An atheist and a Deist, which Jefferson was, have no real
disagreement; man was created with these rights as part of
his naturre.

Herman Rubin

unread,
Feb 4, 2016, 2:57:43 PM2/4/16
to
On 2016-02-03, Beach Runner <lowh...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Tuesday, February 2, 2016 at 2:23:42 PM UTC-8, shel...@thevillages.net wrote:
>> On 2/2/2016 3:17 PM, Giorgies E Kepipesiom wrote:
>> > On Tuesday, February 2, 2016 at 1:40:23 PM UTC-5, googy wrote:
>> >> "Our rights come from God and not from the government."

>> > From the US Declaration of Independence:

>> > "...the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and
of Nature's God entitle them

>> > "...they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable
Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness"

>> > So, it appears that rights are originally granted by God, according
to the USA founding document. The function of government is to secure
those God-given rights:

As I have posted elsewhere, the rights were not verbally given by God,
but were made part of the biological structure. The rights are from
nature.

>> > "to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men"

>> > GEK

>> Time, place, context. Yes, that is what it says. If it were written
>> today, the use of "God" would not probably not have been included.

>> --
>> Shelly

> The founding document is indeed a wonderful document. But it is not
> a religious document, the ideas are human created and man made.

> Treating the Declaration and Constitution as anything but documents
is absurd, yet many people treat them as if they are holy.

> They were written for the most part but rich aristocrats, most of which
> owned, bought, sold and abused slaves, and more concerned with their own
> upper class aristocracy than if they were ruled by the British.

Very definitely Marxist baloney. Where do you think the thousands of
militiamen who fought the British came from? New England had few slaves,
and the town meetings did much of the legislation.

At the time of the writing of the Constitution, it was expected that
slavery would not increase, or that it might even die out. The slave
trade was only authorized until 1808. I do not believe that slavery
had been abolished in many places yet.

> The common people certainly didn't care if they were ruled by rich >
white colonists or rich white Britians.

With the ready availability of the frontier, the common people had more
power THEN than any of the Constitutional amendments have given them;
they were also far more educated according to the standards of thwir
time than our legislators are now.

The story of the American
Revolution is a fairy tale. It wasn't even won by the US, it was won
> for the most part by the French. Thanks to Ben Franklin. When the

It took the American defeat of the British at Saratoga to get the
French to agree to come in.

> British surrendered, there were more French troops on
the field of battle and the British ships were blockaded
by the French. The British general tried to surrender
to the French General, but as the ultimate humiliation,
> he was made to surrender to Washington.

The British were driven from the South by American forces,
The French Navy was important in getting the British to
surrender rather than being rescued, but the boots on the
ground were mainly American.


It > A really great history book is a Peoples History of the US, 1492 to
Current, > (which was 1980) by Howard Zinn. He was fired for writing
it, as it was controversial and not politically correct, but won the book
of the year award and is required reading in many history classes today.
It tells the

> US history from the view of the slaves, the solders, the farmers,
the workers in the factories, the common people rather than the few
rich leaders. Highly recommended.

No, it tells it from the view of Marxists. Did Adams or Franklin own
slaves? Slavery died out in New England quite soon after the Revolution.
The only reason it lasted in the South was the invention of the cotton gin,
which made large-scale processing of cotton commercially feasible.

[Further Marxist interpretations deleted.]

mm

unread,
Feb 4, 2016, 6:55:08 PM2/4/16
to
No, not at all.

> Besides, we have plenty of
>people who believe that the individual is to be subordinated to the
>community. (Consider all the folks willing to vote for Sanders.)

ROTFL. Voting for Sanders does not mean subordinating the individual
to the community. At most it's about money, not about the person.

Do you think when you give tsedaka that you're subordinating yourself
to the community? Is that what you teach your children tsedaka is.

Do you think when you pay taxes to fund public schools from 1-12 you
are subordinating yourself to the community? Which is more
important, school or medical care? Highways or medical care?

Social welfare programs are an attempt by voters to do for people,
with the force of American law, what much of tsedaka is, with the
force of Jewish law.


>Occasionally those people win political power, and then you have
>places like the USSR.

The problem with the USSR was not social welfare programs. It was
totalitarianism, imperialism, and enforced to a great extent atheism.

Yours is the kind of nonsense attacks on social welfare legislation
that we will see plenty of if Bernie were to get nominated.

> But even in the minority they have an effect
>worldwide. To them, the individual is no authority.

Again, laughing.

>IOW, without referring to God, neither yesterday nor today would the
>Declaration of Independence be nearly as powerful a document.

i haven't had a chance to answer yours or any other of the original
comments on that, but you have a strong point when you attribute iiuyc
the origin of "Rights come from God" to the writers of the DOI. Sort
of amazing considering that that was written 1700 years after the time
of Jesus and 3400 years after Sinai. I guess those candidates who
say "Rights come from God" attribute to the writers of the DOI the
status of prophet, or at least the equal of the writers of their
Bible. I wonder if they have noticed that.

mm

unread,
Feb 4, 2016, 7:00:11 PM2/4/16
to
On Fri, 5 Feb 2016 00:01:45 +0000 (UTC), mm <mm2...@bigfoot.com>
wrote:

>
>>>> Without God, what authority could they invoke today?
>>>
>>>The individual.
>>
>>Not quite the same oomph, don't you think?
>
>No, not at all.

This could be taken two ways. I meant I agree with Yisroel: No, it
doesn't have the same oomph, not at all. Some people are right,
some are wrong, and everywhere in between. By the time people are 20,
they've usually learned their parents are sometimes wrong, and they
certainly think lots of other people are wrong.

Even with the DOI and its attributing the 3 rights to the Creator,
most Southerners didn't think slaves had a right to liberty or the
pursuit of happiness. Whevever the principles of the DOI got in
people's way, they were ignored.

Beach Runner

unread,
Feb 4, 2016, 7:01:46 PM2/4/16
to
I believe that Jefferson was an atheist, but knew it political suicide to
admit to that. In fact, with the US population admitting to be at least 15% atheist I am sure that there are secret atheists in Congress, and perhaps other past presidents.

Being Jewish will cost Sanders a lot of votes for sure, regardless if he no longer supports organized religions.

Even today, the greatest percentage of religious hate crimes, as well as numbers
is against Jews and accounts for 18% of all hate crimes in total.

Most hate crimes are against African Americans, ethnic groups, and gay men.

But Jews are such a tiny percentage of our population.



Yisroel Markov

unread,
Feb 9, 2016, 12:46:49 PM2/9/16
to
On Thu, 4 Feb 2016 18:34:53 +0000 (UTC), Shelly
Yes, because the founders (building on and with the assistance of many
other thinkers, such as Ayn Rand) have succeeded - the idea is no
longer weird.

Yisroel Markov

unread,
Feb 9, 2016, 12:46:55 PM2/9/16
to
I have thought of several things to say about the above, but I will
limit myself to this: Please think twice before writing such offensive
nonsense.

[snip] (but offensive nonsense left for reference)

Yisroel Markov

unread,
Feb 9, 2016, 12:46:55 PM2/9/16
to
On Thu, 4 Feb 2016 15:40:18 +0000 (UTC), Fred Goldstein
<fg...@removeQRM.ionary.com> said:

>On 2/3/2016 7:48 PM, Yisroel Markov wrote:
>...
>>> Time, place, context. Yes, that is what it says. If it were written
>>> today, the use of "God" would not probably not have been included.
>>
>> AFAIK, in Old English the word "right" had the connotation of
>> "privilege granted by liege lord, often against his will." The authors
>> of the Declaration consciously propounded a revolutionary idea: That
>> certain rights are so necessary to the function of a decent society
>> that they must be placed beyond the reach of earthly rulers. Thus
>> "endowed by their Creator", to invoke the highest possible authority.
>>
>> Without God, what authority could they invoke today?
>>
>The inherency of Human Rights. This is the basic notion that humans are
>inherently worthy of rights, and are not property or slaves whose rights
>must be granted by anyone else.

Ayn Rand says "hi!"

Seriously, how do you ground this without resorting to some sort of
Objectivism? The founders didn't bother grounding, and they were
honest about this: "We hold these truths to be self-evident..." IOW,
this is how we want things to be, and let's "blame" it on God.

Fred Goldstein

unread,
Feb 10, 2016, 12:22:34 AM2/10/16
to
On 2/9/2016 12:53 PM, Yisroel Markov wrote:
> On Thu, 4 Feb 2016 15:40:18 +0000 (UTC), Fred Goldstein
> <fg...@removeQRM.ionary.com> said:
>
>> On 2/3/2016 7:48 PM, Yisroel Markov wrote:
>> ...
>>>> Time, place, context. Yes, that is what it says. If it were written
>>>> today, the use of "God" would not probably not have been included.
>>>
>>> AFAIK, in Old English the word "right" had the connotation of
>>> "privilege granted by liege lord, often against his will." The authors
>>> of the Declaration consciously propounded a revolutionary idea: That
>>> certain rights are so necessary to the function of a decent society
>>> that they must be placed beyond the reach of earthly rulers. Thus
>>> "endowed by their Creator", to invoke the highest possible authority.
>>>
>>> Without God, what authority could they invoke today?
>>>
>> The inherency of Human Rights. This is the basic notion that humans are
>> inherently worthy of rights, and are not property or slaves whose rights
>> must be granted by anyone else.
>
> Ayn Rand says "hi!"
>
> Seriously, how do you ground this without resorting to some sort of
> Objectivism? The founders didn't bother grounding, and they were
> honest about this: "We hold these truths to be self-evident..." IOW,
> this is how we want things to be, and let's "blame" it on God.
>
Quite to the contrary of Rand, while humans are worthy of rights, they
(we) are also social animals, and do best when we support each other,
rather than simply look out for ourselves.

What makes socially-conservative societies succeed is that they do have
their own forms of "socialism" -- the economic term is "club goods". In
such societies (think New Skver), the cash economy is weak, and the
price of being part of the club is quite great -- one must conform to an
endless plethora of ritual and hierarchical behavior. But in exchange
for proving one's loyalty to the group, the group takes care of its own.

Liberalism doesn't require that one pay the price of club goods, other
than one's taxes.

mm

unread,
Feb 10, 2016, 8:39:35 AM2/10/16
to
On Tue, 9 Feb 2016 17:53:38 +0000 (UTC), Yisroel Markov
I infer that you are angry. Did you not notice that your prior post
made me angry, or did you not care?

> Please think twice before writing such offensive
>nonsense.

I refer you to your prior post and to the line above this line, and I
give you the same advice.

>[snip] (but offensive nonsense left for reference)

To whom was it offensive? When I first read your reply, I thought
maybe I had said more than I meant to say and predicted YOU would do
bad things in the future. But I didn't. I limited myself to what
you had said already, and predicted there would be plenty more of that
(from Republicans) if Bernie were to get nominated. You don't doubt
that, do you? You just don't like it being called nonsense. (Even
though it was libelous and worse than mere nonsense.)

You don't seem to understand what was offensive about the post I was
replying to. So to help you out, I've written a second reply to that
post. That is the place to look.

mm

unread,
Feb 10, 2016, 9:17:59 AM2/10/16
to
On Thu, 4 Feb 2016 16:39:16 +0000 (UTC), Yisroel Markov
<ey.m...@MUNGiname.com> wrote:

>On Thu, 4 Feb 2016 03:32:59 +0000 (UTC), Shelly
><shel...@thevillages.net> said:
>
>>On 2/3/2016 7:48 PM, Yisroel Markov wrote:
>>> On Tue, 2 Feb 2016 22:30:17 +0000 (UTC), Shelly
>>> <shel...@thevillages.net> said:
>>>
>>>> On 2/2/2016 3:17 PM, Giorgies E Kepipesiom wrote:
>>>>> On Tuesday, February 2, 2016 at 1:40:23 PM UTC-5, googy wrote:
>>>>>> "Our rights come from God and not from the government."
>>>>>
>>>>> From the US Declaration of Independence:
>>>>>
>>>>> "...the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitle them
>>>>> "...they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness"
>>>>>
>>>>> So, it appears that rights are originally granted by God, according to the USA founding document. The function of government is to secure those God-given rights:
>>>>>
>>>>> "to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men"
>>>>>
>>>>> GEK
>>>>
>>>> Time, place, context. Yes, that is what it says. If it were written
>>>> today, the use of "God" would not probably not have been included.
>>>
>>> AFAIK, in Old English the word "right" had the connotation of
>>> "privilege granted by liege lord, often against his will." The authors
>>> of the Declaration consciously propounded a revolutionary idea: That
>>> certain rights are so necessary to the function of a decent society
>>> that they must be placed beyond the reach of earthly rulers. Thus
>>> "endowed by their Creator", to invoke the highest possible authority.

In addition to what I said in my first reply to this post:

>>> Without God, what authority could they invoke today?
>>
>>The individual.
>
>Not quite the same oomph, don't you think? Besides, we have plenty of
>people who believe that the individual is to be subordinated to the
>community. (Consider all the folks willing to vote for Sanders.)
>Occasionally those people win political power, and then you have
>places like the USSR.

It is disgusting to the nth degree that you compare the supporters of
Sanders to those with political power in the USSR, land-stealing,
land-owner-killing, property-stealing, capitalist murdering,
gulag-running, Jew-murdering, Judaism-suppressing, atheism-enforcing,
totalitarian, imperialist, Stalinists and their successors.

>But even in the minority they have an effect
>worldwide. To them, the individual is no authority.

This makes sense if you're talking about the "authority" to declare
what is an inalienable right, but you're not talking about that here.
You're talking about "them", Sanders supporters, and trying to support
your hateful notion that "all the folks willing to vote for Sanders"
"believe that the individual is to be subordinated to the community"
and that if they were to "win political power, ... then you have
places like the USSR." and that they don't care about the individual.
So it's more hostile baloney.

I thought you were above this kind of incredible overstatement.

>IOW, without referring to God, neither yesterday nor today would the
>Declaration of Independence be nearly as powerful a document.

And these two lines are not "other words" for what you just said.

mm

unread,
Feb 10, 2016, 9:18:27 AM2/10/16
to
On Fri, 5 Feb 2016 00:08:24 +0000 (UTC), Beach Runner
<lowh...@gmail.com> wrote:

>
>I believe that Jefferson was an atheist, but knew it political suicide to
>admit to that. In fact, with the US population admitting to be at least 15% atheist I am sure that there are secret atheists in Congress, and perhaps other past presidents.
>
>Being Jewish will cost Sanders a lot of votes for sure, regardless if he no longer supports organized religions.

For sure. Because even if some Jews don't recognize the nationality
of being a Jew, plenty of non-Jews understand it. Leaving the
religion, even totally, doesnt' mean leaving the nation.

Plus he hasn't adopted Xianity. He said some nice things about it at
Liberty U. but that's not nearly the same thing.


BTW, I wonder what Trump gave or promised the school to get what was
as close to an endorsement as a 501c3 organization can give. Or if
not Liberty U, how much money Jerry Falwell Jr. got personally. His
father held antisemitic views that he didn't talk about publicly, and
I don't have much hope for Jr. He certainly had to ignore far more
than the usual number of moral failings, far more than any other
candidate, Rep or Dem, to say such nice things about Trump.

http://501c3lookup.org/liberty_university_inc/

BTW, Trump has added to his list of bad behaviours the use of vulgar
words.

>Even today, the greatest percentage of religious hate crimes, as well as numbers
>is against Jews and accounts for 18% of all hate crimes in total.
>
>Most hate crimes are against African Americans, ethnic groups, and gay men.

Of course Jews are also an ethnic group. But if the hate crimes were
committed against shuls, or people going to or from shul, or those who
dress in a Jewish way, I'd be willing to count the crimes as
religious.

>But Jews are such a tiny percentage of our population.

By which you mean -- but you don't say -- mathematically,
numerically, that is why most hate crimes are not against Jews, even
though proportionally (maybe?) the rate is high or the highest.

>

Yisroel Markov

unread,
Feb 10, 2016, 4:32:48 PM2/10/16
to
On Wed, 10 Feb 2016 05:29:18 +0000 (UTC), Fred Goldstein
I don't see how this is contrary to Rand. Therefore, it still appears
to me that you're either not bothering to ground this assertion (which
is OK, of course; you're in good company of the founders), or
grounding it on observations of human nature not that different from
Rand's - "Nature, in order to be mastered, must be obeyed." (Which is
also OK :-)

And ISTM that, in the end, the two are not too different.

>What makes socially-conservative societies succeed is that they do have
>their own forms of "socialism" -- the economic term is "club goods". In
>such societies (think New Skver), the cash economy is weak, and the
>price of being part of the club is quite great -- one must conform to an
>endless plethora of ritual and hierarchical behavior. But in exchange
>for proving one's loyalty to the group, the group takes care of its own.

Is this a tacit admission that generally the USA is not a socially
conservative society? :-)

>Liberalism doesn't require that one pay the price of club goods, other
>than one's taxes.

Under what is now called liberalism, there are also other forms of
coercion.

Yisroel Markov

unread,
Feb 10, 2016, 4:32:57 PM2/10/16
to
On Wed, 10 Feb 2016 13:46:19 +0000 (UTC), mm <mm2...@bigfoot.com>
said:

>On Tue, 9 Feb 2016 17:53:38 +0000 (UTC), Yisroel Markov
><ey.m...@MUNGiname.com> wrote:


>>I have thought of several things to say about the above, but I will
>>limit myself to this:
>
>I infer that you are angry.

You infer somewhat incorrectly - I was annoyed. Therefore, I held my
response until that feeling passed, and wrote only what I wrote.

>Did you not notice that your prior post
>made me angry, or did you not care?

I don't care. AISI, a mature man controls his emotions, especially
online where there's no pressure to reply immediately, so there's no
excuse for shooting from the hip.

[snip]

Yisroel Markov

unread,
Feb 10, 2016, 4:37:44 PM2/10/16
to
On Wed, 10 Feb 2016 14:24:43 +0000 (UTC), mm <mm2...@bigfoot.com>
said:
You haven't seen it. I have. Most of the people who supported the
Bolsheviks had none or few of the above evils in mind - but they came
to pass. Because they are the logical consequence of socialism and its
twin, fascism - which is something most young people don't understand
(cf. the average age of Sanders' supporters).

Note the distinction between "supporters" and "those with political
power." And don't interpret this as a comparison of Sanders to Stalin.
Reality is more complicated than our models thereof, but the models
can still be useful. Oh, wait - you don't understand rhetoric...

>>But even in the minority they have an effect
>>worldwide. To them, the individual is no authority.
>
>This makes sense if you're talking about the "authority" to declare
>what is an inalienable right, but you're not talking about that here.
>You're talking about "them", Sanders supporters, and trying to support
>your hateful notion that "all the folks willing to vote for Sanders"
>"believe that the individual is to be subordinated to the community"
>and that if they were to "win political power, ... then you have
>places like the USSR." and that they don't care about the individual.
>So it's more hostile baloney.
>
>I thought you were above this kind of incredible overstatement.

If you really thought that, you should've reflected on the fact that
there have been several instances when you misunderstood what I was
saying, and asked me whether this was what I really meant. Instead,
you chose to indulge your anger. (And you have the temerity to accuse
Malcolm of being impolite!)

>>IOW, without referring to God, neither yesterday nor today would the
>>Declaration of Independence be nearly as powerful a document.
>
>And these two lines are not "other words" for what you just said.

IMHO they are. QED.

malcolm...@btinternet.com

unread,
Feb 11, 2016, 12:26:00 AM2/11/16
to
On Wednesday, February 10, 2016 at 9:32:48 PM UTC, Yisroel Markov wrote:
> On Wed, 10 Feb 2016 05:29:18 +0000 (UTC), Fred Goldstein
>
> >Quite to the contrary of Rand, while humans are worthy of rights, they
> >(we) are also social animals, and do best when we support each other,
> >rather than simply look out for ourselves.
>
> I don't see how this is contrary to Rand. Therefore, it still appears
> to me that you're either not bothering to ground this assertion (which
> is OK, of course; you're in good company of the founders), or
> grounding it on observations of human nature not that different from
> Rand's - "Nature, in order to be mastered, must be obeyed." (Which is
> also OK :-)
>
> And ISTM that, in the end, the two are not too different.
>
Ayn Rand was a philosopher. Not a terribly good one, but not
as catastrophically bad as Marx and Nietzsche, and at least
a philosopher in the sense of someone who communicates deep
thoughts, rather than someone who knows a lot about people
accepted as philosophers.

So the idea was that Objectivism had to be derived from first
principles - A is A. The idea being that a human being must
create and defend the conditions for his own existence, and
that involves recognising the world as it is, not as we would
like it to be. Whilst mainly Rand attacks the cant that surrounds
government programmes which are justified on the basis of
defending the weak, whilst actually enriching a clique of insiders,
there are also some attacks on the virtue of charity itself,
which doesn't follow from libertarianism (a libertarian takes
the position that your money is yours and no one has the right,
to insist that it be spent in a certain way, not that all uses of
money are morally equal).

Yisroel Markov

unread,
Feb 11, 2016, 12:56:37 PM2/11/16
to
I don't recall Rand attacking the virtue of charity.

"The fact that a man has no claim on others (i.e., that it is not
their moral duty to help him and that he cannot demand their help as
his right) does not preclude or prohibit good will among men and does
not make it immoral to offer or to accept voluntary, non-sacrificial
assistance."

Or: "My views on charity are very simple. I do not consider it a major
virtue and, above all, I do not consider it a moral duty. There is
nothing wrong in helping other people, if and when they are worthy of
the help and you can afford to help them. I regard charity as a
marginal issue. What I am fighting is the idea that charity is a moral
duty and a primary virtue."

http://aynrandlexicon.com/lexicon/charity.html

Not a very Jewish view, to be sure. Then again, one may argue that
Jews view neither the agricultural gifts nor tzedaka as "charity" in
the Western sense of the word.

Herman Rubin

unread,
Mar 13, 2016, 4:43:25 PM3/13/16
to
At the time Jefferson put down those words, just about everyone
in the colonies, and indeed also in Europe, believed in God. Many
were Deists, who believed that God created, and then let His creation
evolve. Jefferson and Paine were both Deists. Believing the right
come from God does not mean that God stated those rights, but for
them it meant that man was created with those rights without saying.
Reply all
Reply to author
Forward
0 new messages