Americans: Are your rights and your power given to you by the government or by your Creator?

[RingOfFire]

[thatshydork]

Depends on who you mean by ‘our creator’. I believe our creator is God and I believe God holds all the power but gives us the freedom to choose as well as some other things. If by creator you’re referring to the Founding Fathers, they wrote down our rights but at the time, the only people who were seen as people were white, straight, cisgender men which has changed over the years (obviously). However, because of the Founding Fathers, I have the right to freedom of the press, freedom of speech, freedom of religion, etc etc. With those freedoms, we are allowed the speak against the government, protest peacefully, practice our own religions publicly or privately, and more. Because of that, the US citizens have the right to alter the government by doing things like voting for the government officials who sit in office and represent us. It’s not really quite that simple but you get the idea.

[WhitneySnow]

I feel that they are given by the Creator, but less religious people feel that they are inalienable rights not really given by anyone. Regardless, they are not the government’s rights to give or take away.

[RingOfFire]

MHO! You stated it perfectly! 👍

[MisterWack]

The founders were always clear that faith played into the certain unalienable rights that Americans should be granted under the Government of the United States of America however aren’t saying that God is the ultimate decider, but rather this particular Governing force should govern over its people by choosing to grant those unalienable rights to America’s people.

Remember these government actions: Slavery goes against the Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness and I’m sure taking away Native American territories then pushing them onto reservations after Trail of Tears also Japanese Internment Camps, etc. I’m 99.9% sure those powers were enacted by the government and not powers given by God.

[liggang]

The source of man’s rights is not divine law or congressional law, but the law of identity. A is A—and Man is Man. Rights are conditions of existence required by man’s nature for his proper survival. If man is to live on earth, it is right for him to use his mind, it is right to act on his own free judgment, it is right to work for his values and to keep the product of his work. If life on earth is his purpose, he has a right to live as a rational being: nature forbids him the irrational. Any group, any gang, any nation that attempts to negate man’s rights, is wrong, which means: is evil, which means: is anti-life.

[Anonymous]

The answer to that question is simple all rights originate from our Creator by way of nature. This is even spelled out in the deceleration. and it really comes down to the fact of what a 'right' really is.

True rights or what we call "Natural rights" are a product of nature itself and by way of nature a gift of God.

A natural right is your ability to do something without aid of anyone else.

A legal 'right' by contrast is the ability to do something with the contracted aid of someone else.

Legal 'rights' are certainly a product of man although such a 'right' does not exist without Natural rights with which it is conducted. Nor do such legal 'rights' necessarily come from a goverment as you can contract with anyone with or without a goverment.

As such all true rights are really natural rights.

[OfDeath]

No such thing actually. The government is the one which “spelled it out” in the declaration. God and/or “natural rights” are a product of human intersubjectivity and are definitely not upheld to the standard most people would like. The truth is people around the world are brutally subjected to the most heinous acts imaginable and there are no rights they can point out to their aggressors which can save them. There is also no evidence of any god being there to help them when facing such atrocities which violate such supposed rights.

[Opinion Owner]

the term "intersubjectivity" @OfDeath is a repetitively recent term invented to describe "a 'meta-theory' of psychoanalysis" The earliest possible reference to the term was in 1955 over 190 years after the founding generations became aware of the concept.

The concept of 'rights' does not mean that you are in practice free to exersize said 'rights' that they were not ceded, usurped, or suppressed by others. Indeed the term is used most often to describe things you could do if you were not soo suppressed in terms of what you should be able to do.

Which while requesting an agreement among other to respect said rights does not in fact ask for an agreement on the existence of said right. Said existences is easily demonstrated, and as such asking you to agree that such a right exist is no different than ask you to a agree that it can rain outside. Why would we care?

[OfDeath]

The rights in question are intersubjective in that people agree by way of memetic inheritance. As I said, they are not upheld everywhere and are subject to the influence of one’s class, race, connections and what have you. They are not god given and do not exist outside of human thought.

[Opinion Owner]

Once again you are using very recently created and highly questionable psycho theory to describe concepts 200+ years predating the same. All the while you seem to be completely missing what the concept is saying. @OfDeath God created everything, however the assertion of the existence of rights comes from God's creation of nature and we humans as part of and within nature.

This is not a meta concept in our heads but rather an observation of our natural capabilities which we had otherwise retained until such time that governments of some form or anther were formed among men.

So you might describe said goverment and its organization as a meta concept or agreement among men but that is throwing a overly broad and thus poorly defined term at the nature of law which itself does not define rights. Laws at best, as have been described in the deceleration provide terms by which we protect rights by ceding some of them.

[OfDeath]

No, intersubjective is a word in the English language. It basically means something which is subject to opinion rather than fact and shared by more than one person. It describes a real phenomenon. Things like the value of currency, laws and the rules of football are all examples of intersubjectivity.

If your argument is based on the claim that “god created everything”, you’re not in a very robust position to say the least. There is no reliable evidence to back that claim. Hence the point. The government provides the rights, not god which is a fictional character and those rights are intersubjective according to the elected government of the day and its subjects.

[Dr_Lovejoy]

This document is a source of frustration, aggravation, and deep reverance and respect for Native Americans. On one hand, its a document that has been the driving force behind the growth and prosperity that has created one of the most powerful nations in human history. On the other hand, it has also been the representative of disenfranchisement, the destruction of a culture and it's people, and the loss of identity. You can't see it in this particular reprint because the font is too small to read. However, the statement "merciless, indian savages" is made right after the poetic soliloquey about "unalienable Rights" right before the entire United States Government begins a decades long crusade to alienate the indigenous peoples. Talk about getting a slap of hypocrit to the face.

[RingOfFire]

Yes the United States of America is the most evil, most imperialist, most genocidal, most heinous nation in the history of the world.

Except for all the others.

[Friendlybro79]

Their creator is interesting. That allowed for more than one idea of a singular religion and God.

Also, this is a great reminder to all that think people different than you don't deserve the same rights as you because you believe in a different God, or no God,

If we're all equal than we are all equal to believe different things and deserve to be respected equally for our similarities and differences.

So for me if I break a law while I'm on earth the government has the ability to come down on me. No one can take your religion away from you so if you believe your rights are given by God good for you. That said you still have to obey by the rule of law we have also given each other by way of our constitutional rights and laws.

[RingOfFire]

"Their creator is interesting. That allowed for more than one idea of a singular religion and God."

Exactly. I think it is clear that they chose the words"their Creator" specifically to avoid it necessarily meaning a religious context or a context in favor of any particular religion.

Everyone has a creator. Whether you believe it is God or nature or science or some other phenomenon, if you didn't have a Creator you wouldn't exist.

So it is a generic term used to make a point that certain rights are natural rights that every human being is endowed with when they are created.

And those are the rights that the government has no authority to interfere with.

I think that is the point of that entire passage.

So yes government can make laws, but if those laws interfere with our natural rights, they are invalid because the government is not permitted to interfere with those rights.

The Constitution is the document which specifies the rights that the government is not allowed to infringe. That is a really important understanding that a great number of our citizens do not understand because it is not taught to them in the schools as it should be. The Constitution isn't a document telling people what they can and cannot do. It's a document telling the government what it can and cannot do and it was created by the states and the people.

[Friendlybro79]

"So yes government can make laws, but if those laws interfere with our natural rights, they are invalid because the government is not permitted to interfere with those rights"

I understand your thought here but it doesn't make those laws invalid while they are law, because if you break those laws you find invalid, you can be held accountable to them. You can't say that you don't recognize the laws your beliefs argue. You can petition laws you don't like, advocate for change that matters to you, and vote how you feel will align most with your beliefs.

Out of curiosity do you have a current law that you think should be invalid because of your beliefs? I might agree but my difference is, if you think it should be invalid doesn't make the law invalid if it's enacted as law just because you don't believe in it.

[RingOfFire]

"if you break those laws you find invalid, you can be held accountable to them."

I'm not sure you are following what I am saying. What I am saying is that any laws that the government passes, that interfere with the rights that are guaranteed to Americans under the Constitution are invalid. Therefore, they cannot be legally enforced.

The Constitution enumerates rights that are protected and the government may not enforce laws that interfere with those rights.

That isn't an opinion that has anything to do with my beliefs, it's a legal fact.

[Friendlybro79]

Thanks for the clarification as I didn't fully understand your original point. I ask if you have an example of a constitutional law, that you know of, that don't line up with your beliefs, and can't be enforced? I can't think of one but that doesn't mean there isn't a current example because I'm unaware of one off the top of my head

[RingOfFire]

There are regularly laws that both federal and state governments attempt to enforce that are ruled unconstitutional by a court and therefore unenforceable. And yes I often agree with the courts on the rulings that these laws are unenforceable. The Supreme Court for example just ruled that many acts performed by a President of the United States are not prosecutable if they are acts that fall within the scope of the president's official duties.

That ruling expanded what is considered official duties in some respects and may have overturned the court case against President Trump in New York for which he has been wrongly called a "convicted criminal" with such glee by the Democrats.

The Court's ruling was so impactful that it caused the court that convicted president Trump to postpone the sentencing hearing which was supposed to take place July 11th.

The Democrats was salivating overseeing president Trump put in jail on that date. But not only didn't it happen, but it may never happen now because of the Supreme Court's ruling.

So there's an example of a ruling that I believe is correct. I believe the New York Court wrongly prosecuted President Trump in violation of his constitutional rights.

[Friendlybro79]

I'm confused what that has to do with what I asked? Maybe I didn't ask the question correctly. Earlier you had the government can't make a law that some how infringes on rights given to you by your creator?

The example you gave has all to do with government and how they just gave the president more power while in office.

If you don't have an example to provide based on how the government has a law that you don't have to abide by because it goes against a natural right your creator gave you then that's ok. I literally couldn't think of one most likely because I don't know everything about every law and every religion or scientific principal that coincides with governmental law.

[Friendlybro79]

Since you made the claim I was trying to further understand you and be enlightened by an example. I'm genuinely curious and interested and not being sarcastic.

[KostasKouvalis]

Yes, I agree. Those are RIGHTS given to us by God.

Things we call "rights" like the "Right to Free Speech", "Right to Bare Arms", "Right to Due Process", etc... those aren't actually rights but privileges. It's not a right if it can theoretically be taken away from you at any time. COVID is an excellent example. Or going to prison. And even the things we call "rights" have certain limitations. I can't own an AK-47 or walk around naked wherever I please.

I know some people will disagree with me and call me and "idiot" (it's happened before), but I know I'm right. If it can be taken away from you at any time, it's not a right.

[RingOfFire]

I was with you on your first two sentences. After that, the concept of free speech, the right to bear arms and the right to due process not being rights but being privileges makes no sense to me.

The whole basis of the Declaration of Independence in the Constitution is that people are born with these ("unalienable") rights and the government is prohibited from infringing upon them. I can't imagine what the meaning of a "right" is if that's not it.

[CrazyGirl2]

According to the US Constitution, the supreme law of the land, we are endowed by our creator with certain inalienable rights. Among these are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness!

[RingOfFire]

Law and history are not your strong suits, but I catch your drift. That passage is from the Declaration of Independence (which is in my original post above) not the Constitution.

You get a like for being close though.

[CrazyGirl2]

Thank god they are not my strong suits, I wouldn't be much good counseling an adolescent rape survivor, if all I could do was tell her how long an officer can hold you on a Terry stop, or explain the unconstitutionality of a pre-textual stop or why the US gained Guam in the Spanish-American war because of a communication error! Nobody can be good at everything, nor know everything. But I can certainly own, and embrace my errors and mistakes, because making mistakes is how we learn.

I truly thank you for the like. 👍
Laura 🤗 🥰

[WindAtMyBack]

I'm an atheist, so I don't believe in any kind of creator in the literal sense. Man created the concept of rights. Nature doesn't have any such thing. The concept of rights comes from man, and it may or may not be recognized by governments.

This certainly isn't an American thing. This was common thinking around that period in history. The only difference is that the US started with a clean slate, so was able to implement a lot of things that were slow to happen elsewhere.

[RingOfFire]

The Declaration doesn't refer to a deity. It seems clear that they intentionally used the word "Creator" to avoid that interpretation. It could be a deity, it could be science, but the point they were clearly making is that the government is not in charge of your basic rights and has no authority or power to infringe on it. And I think this is THE CENTRAL principle that was intended to separate America from every other country in existence at the time it was written (you are wrong about this point. America created an experiment in freedom that existed nowhere else on earth at the time. Since America was founded many other countries adopted some of the principles that America pioneered).

[monorprise]

What exactly do you think a 'right' is separate and apart from what you could do in a state of nature? @WindAtMyBack

Theses rights are in deed a product of nature, whether or not you believe nature has a God which made nature (including such rights) possible is a side issue.

[RingOfFire]

I don't think I disagree with you. The rights could be called "natural rights." I don't see anything in that statement in the Declaration that says they have to be rights given by a "God" or any religion.

You were created by something... call it nature, science, God or whatever else you believe. And the Declaration notes that your rights are the result of you being created by a "Creator." I don't see an conflict with atheism.

[Anonymous]

Our creator. This is why countries like China will always have trouble with thier population. Because while China's culture is a more docile, easier controlled one, it's in human nature to want life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. This is a lesson countries like China have yet to learn.

[Dargil]

The Constitution does not Grant rights. It preserves them.

[Dargil]

Rights are granted by G0
d and preserved by the Constitution.

[RingOfFire]

The Unite States Constitution wasn't designed to determine what rights people have. It was designed to make clear what rights the government does NOT have. The purpose was to LIMIT the authority of the federal government so that it could not trample on the rights of the state or the people. The document was devised by the STATES to grant certain LIMITED authority to the federal government and all authority not so granted was reserved to the states or to the people.

[Dargil]

Exactly.

[RingOfFire]

I think one of the biggest threats to Liberty in America today is the conflict of interest that the schools are run by the government.

They do not teach children this concept. They want them to think that it is only by the government's grace that they have rights.

But that is completely contrary to the founding principal of this country. The whole point of the Constitution was to limit the power of government because your rights don't come from the government they come from your creator whether you believe that is God or not.

And the founding documents make it clear that government has no authority to take away rights that are given to us by our creator.

But they do not teach this in the schools because the schools are run by the government which only has an interest in gaining more power.

[Agape93]

Neither. They are intrinsic to being human. Nobody, no person, no deity and no government has any right to take them from me.

[Juxtapose]

Leverage. If you don't have that then you can't maintain your freedom and that's the reality.

There are no deities.

[RingOfFire]

The Declaration doesn't refer to a deity. It seems clear that they intentionally used the word "Creator" to avoid that interpretation. It could be a deity, it could be science, but the point they were clearly making is that the government is not in charge of your basic rights and has no authority or power to infringe on it. And I think this is THE CENTRAL principle that was intended to separate America from every other country in existence at the time it was written.

[Juxtapose]

Well that's a nice sentiment but in reality the universe works via might makes right. Nothing is going to give our freedoms to us, we have to take them. Sometimes by force if necessary but if we are clever we won't have to do that.

[Juxtapose]

We can write on paper all the declarations that sound really cool all we want but it's not going to do anything if we don't have force to back it up.

[monorprise]

A weapon is leverage as is retaining the right to have and use such a weapon. But a natural right is a far broader topic of everything a man can do in a state of nature. Which includes using a gun but also includes speaking and thinking whatever he likes.

[DrPepper12]

Neither. They are inherent in being human. No god or government grants them.

[RingOfFire]

"Creator" doesn't necessarily mean God. Science can be a Creator too. It seems clear that the founders chose that word just for that reason.

Humans were created by someone or something, that cannot be denied.

[GeminiDiamond]

God is literally written on the American money.

[GeminiDiamond]

As well as old Latin with old Egyptian images.

[GeminiDiamond]

Oddly the Eye of Horus on the dollar bill. As Egyptians believed pyramids were you climb in life. To the the top 3 levels, or precipice of spiritual awakening. The top being you see all and can't miss.

[GeminiDiamond]

Lol, more on depth. The forefathers were Freemasons. Who believes they come from a time of builders who built the temple of God from King Solomon's days.

[RingOfFire]

@GeminiDiamond

Some of them were Freemasons but that doesn't necessarily tell you much since Freemasonry was very popular back then and common. Here is some excellent information on that with many good references included:

"Certainly Sam Adams, John Hancock, Ben Franklin, Paul Revere, George Washington, and other figures prominent in textbooks numbered themselves among both the ranks of Freemasons and Patriots, but a far greater number of significant players in the revolution were not associated with Freemasonry in any direct way. Moreover, many persons, who were nominal members of established churches, used the opportunity to join a fraternal order—any popular fraternal order—in order to abandon formal religious services without cutting themselves off from regular contact and sociability within the wider community.

Moreover, detailed studies of 18th century Freemasonry provide evidence only of a causal link between the organization and the revolution with Masons representing approximately 25 percent of the major figures among the founding fathers—a proportion among that class of persons not inconsistent with their membership in other colonial organizations that researchers might choose to study."

www.quora.com/Why-do-American-textbooks-avoid-the-fact-that-a-large-percentage-of-Founding-Fathers-were-Freemasons-Why-hide-it-After-all-Masons-had-a-positive-influence-on-the-development-of-Western-political-order

[Amur8711]

Our rights are given by our creator, the bill of rights says what the government can't do to protect the individual citizens rights.

[RingOfFire]

That is precisely right. The tragedy is that every school child isn't taught that from a very young age. Instead they are taught to hate their country. And then we wonder why we are in the mess we are in.

[Anonymous]

Your government. It was written by people, I don't recall the Bible or anything explicitly mentioning "rights" you allegedly have.

And with due respect I haven't seen any God stop the government when they're overtly disregarding those rights.

[Anonymous]

Rights come from Divine Providence. Governments are created by man to safeguard those rights. The government derives its just powers from the people. The people do NOT get their rights from the government.

[exitseven]

they are given to us by our creator. The government needs to butt out.

[Anonymous]

Do not conflate the Declaration of Independence with the Constitution, the Declaration of Independence is a flowery document using the language of the time to basically say what could be summed up in a tweet as in "we're out, see ya!'

Rights are granted by the social contract

[Alli112]

I'd have to explicitly believe in a Creator for this to be a useful question 🤷‍♀️

[RingOfFire]

Id *something* didn't create you, would you exist? *Something* had to create you right?

[Alli112]

My mum lol? Somehow I don't think the founding fathers of the US were referring to their mothers in this context though lol

[RingOfFire]

🤣 I think they chose the word Creator as a generic word instead of saying God. It could mean that nature created you and all of these rights that you have from nature, the right to survive, the right to breathe, the right to defend yourself, the right to speak your mind, the right to believe in a religion if you want to, even if you don't believe in a god you can believe that these are natural rights.

[Alli112]

Oh they definitely did (freedom of religion and all that, though that might have just been a more common term back then, I don't know) I definitely believe in human rights, I just don't need a god to be the one to tell me that it's true.

[standardguy]

Of cause God created me and gave me my dignity and no government or worldly ruler can take it away or is allowed to draw me into dirt.

[Bestdia]

Creator, or nature, but backed by government when the latter is appropriate and legitimate.

[GeminiDiamond]

George had a freemason sign 5th degree, on his picture at his inauguration

[GeminiDiamond]

You would think 33rd degree? But the lowly runs...

[GeminiDiamond]

How could I know that?

[GeminiDiamond]

And I'll probably be assassinated.

[GeminiDiamond]

The American people care not about if you have kids. Family. They will kill all to reach their goals. RIP Hiroshima.

[GeminiDiamond]

We signed peace treaties, but what you did to Japan was savage

[GeminiDiamond]

You think we forgot? To mothers nursing their children on their breast when the bombs dropped?

[RingOfFire]

The atomic bombs that America dropped on Hiroshima and Nagasaki saved a million and a half lives. That's the number of additional people that would have been killed the bomb had not been dropped in the war had to continue.

The second bomb was dropped on Nagasaki because Japan refused to surrender. After the second atomic bomb was dropped they failed to surrender again so America prepared a third bomb that would have been dropped directly on Tokyo and killed the Japanese leadership. When they found out about that the Japanese surrendered.

They would have been no war with Japan had Japan not committed a terrorist act against the United States and murdered thousands of American military people in a sneak attack while they were sleeping.

[GeminiDiamond]

That forgives killing women and children to kill soldiers? We couldn't of come up with a better way?

[RingOfFire]

News flash... 55 million civilians were killed in World War II. That's what happens in a war. America didn't start that war, but we ended it.

[GeminiDiamond]

No, basically, US found the a bomb before Germany. Really, Germany found the A bomb first, but the head physicist denied his findings to prevent world destruction.

[RingOfFire]

Oh please. Spare me the revisionist history.

[GeminiDiamond]

And was killed by Hitler. He wasn't just Oppenheimer, he would of killed everyone.

[GeminiDiamond]

You don't even know the physicist name

[Snakeyes7]

The creator as these rights are inalienable.

[OfDeath]

The government wrote that. They can say creator all they want but at the end of the day they wrote it. The answer is the government.

[RingOfFire]

So your position is that if the government writes something declaring that your rights come from your Creator and not from them, that means your rights come from the government? 🤪

Okay sure.

[OfDeath]

If JRR Tolkien writes that god gave the hobbits rights, do you take it from JRR Tolkien or god?

Hopefully that helps you understand a bit better.

[Hispanic-Cool-Guy]

God doesn't give anyone rights.

The government is the one who decides what rights you will have or won't have.

[RingOfFire]

HAHAHA!

In China, Russia, Iran and North Korea maybe and a bunch of other countries that's true. But in America that is completely forbidden. The US federal government was allowed to be created by the states only under the conditions that it would not EVER have the authority to determine what natural rights the American people may and may not have or interfere with those rights. The entire US Constitution is a document that tells the US federal government what it is and is not allowed to do. You've got it backwards. The PEOPLE are the ones who determined what rights the government would have and created the Constitution to put it in writing.

[Hispanic-Cool-Guy]

You mentioned the creator/God and government where do rights come from, not me.

I gave you the correct answer which comes from a men that wrote those rights on a paper which can at any moment be taken away from you.

[RingOfFire]

Your understanding of the Constitution is pitiful. What is written in the constitution is the rights that the government may not infringe upon. It is not rights that the government grants, it is right that the government does not grant and has no authority to interfere with such as the right to free speech, the right to practice a religion, the right to bear arms and so on. The Constitution prohibits the government from interfering with those rights. It is not a statement of rights granted by the government. I think people that don't understand that should have their citizenship revoked.

[Daniela1982]

But ultimately, it is God who is in control of everything. Men are only in control if God allows it. In fact, even Satan can't do anything to us without God's permission either, like in the case of Job.

[zombiewoof]

We the people created the government, we gave us the rights

[Anonymous]

What creator? The gov exists.. I see nobody else stepping forward.

[Anonymous]

These idiots that say they know for a fact, there is no God or creator, really crack me up.

[imfreeze95]

Given by my creator protected by the government.

[RingOfFire]

I agree with you. Just want to make one comment about "protected by the government" since some others have said that too.

I think the government is a two-edge sword in that regard.

Yes, it protects your rights in many ways by providing law enforcement to protect you, military defense, etc.

But on the other hand I think a basic principle of American government was founded on the idea that people also need protection FROM the government, especially a government that oversteps its authority. I think that is a critical point. The people need to be constantly vigilant to make sure that government doesn't do what they have not authorized it to do. The people must always be in control, not the government.

Thanks for your comment and just wanted to add this.

[gorydetails]

Creator. It’s pretty cut and dry.

[normalice]

Neither. They are given by our predecessors.

[Anonymous]

Given to us by God, protected by the constitution

[FunkyMonkee]

Government