• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Does the Constitution Really Say Freedom of Religion?

Master PO said:
wrong, rights exist without government they are just not secure and government uses law to secure them

you have outed yourself again by making it known rights are not created by government
Click to expand...

Where exactly do they exist without government?
 
Ockham said:
Natural rights, ie., Kant, ie., "self evident". :lol:
Click to expand...

If it were self evident there would never be a debate about it. And there almost constantly is a debate about it.

So the self evident crap is officially flushed.

So try and answer - where do these so called natural rights exist without government?
 
Master PO said:
i have already explained that, do i really have to do it again?
Click to expand...

I have never seen an adequate explanation from you or anyone that these so called rights actually without of government protection for that behavior.

So YES - please do explain where they can be found if government does not accept them.
 
haymarket said:
If it were self evident there would never be a debate about it. And there almost constantly is a debate about it.
Click to expand...
You're assumption equating a lack of debate equates to something is laughable. Anything can be debated as there are no exclusions or inclusions required.

However, you asked where it exists, and I provided you an answer where it exists.

haymarket said:
So the self evident crap is officially flushed.
Click to expand...
Perhaps that's because you don't understand it.


haymarket said:
So try and answer - where do these so called natural rights exist without government?
Click to expand...

Natural rights, ie., Kant, ie., "self evident". (apparently it's worth repeating).
 
haymarket said:
i have never seen an adequate explanation from you or anyone that these so called rights actually without of government protection for that behavior.

So yes - please do explain where they can be found if government does not accept them.
Click to expand...

i have, you just dont accept what i state, that does not mean i didn't give you a reply an explanation, its just you didn't like it.

Rights follow nature, they are natural to the body to do and these exercises, usages are secured by government

rights are unwritten law.
 
Ockham said:
You're assumption equating a lack of debate equates to something is laughable. Anything can be debated as there are no exclusions or inclusions required.

However, you asked where it exists, and I provided you an answer where it exists.

Perhaps that's because you don't understand it.




Natural rights, ie., Kant, ie., "self evident". (apparently it's worth repeating).
Click to expand...

No - your attempts to dodge the question.
 
Master PO said:
i have, you just dont accept what i state, that does not mean i didn't give you a reply an explanation, its just you didn't like it.

Rights follow nature, they are natural to the body to do and these exercises, usages are secured by government

rights are unwritten law.
Click to expand...

You are confusing abilities with rights. They are two different things.

Unwritten law??!?!? Please do go on and tell me how a belief in that protects me or my behavior.
 
haymarket said:
You are confusing abilities with rights. They are two different things.

Unwritten law??!?!? Please do go on and tell me how a belief in that protects me or my behavior.
Click to expand...

rights are abilities because i exercise them.

please provide information which contradicts me instead of your own words.

https://definitions.uslegal.com/u/unwritten-law/

Unwritten law refers to the law based upon custom, usage, and judicial decisions. It is distinguished from the enactments of a legislature, orders or decrees in writing. Although an unwritten law is not enacted in the form of statute or ordinance, it has got legal sanction. An unwritten law need not be expressly evidenced in court decisions, but may be collected, gathered or implied there from under statute.

In In re Estate of Spoya, 129 Mont. 83 (Mont. 1955), the court held that unwritten law is the law not promulgated and recorded, but which is, nevertheless, observed and administered in the courts of the country. It has no certain repository, but is collected from the reports of the decisions of the courts and treatises of learned men.

Unwritten LawUnwritten legal definition of Unwritten LawUnwritten Law


Unwritten rules, principles, and norms that have the effect and force of law though they have not been formally enacted by the government.
Most laws in America are written. The U.S. Code, the Code of Federal Regulations, and the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure are three examples of written laws that are frequently cited in federal court. Each state has a similar body of written laws. By contrast, unwritten law consists of those customs, traditions, practices, usages, and other maxims of human conduct that the government has recognized and enforced.
Unwritten law is most commonly found in primitive societies where illiteracy is prevalent. Because many residents in such societies cannot read or write, there is little point in publishing written laws to govern their conduct. Instead, societal disputes in primitive societies are resolved informally, through appeal to unwritten maxims of fairness or popularly accepted modes of behavior. Litigants present their claims orally in most primitive societies, and judges announce their decisions in the same fashion. The governing body in primitive societies typically enforces the useful traditions that are widely practiced in the community, while those practices that are novel or harmful fall into disuse or are discouraged.
Much of International Law is a form of primitive unwritten law. For centuries the Rules of War governing hostilities between belligerents consisted of a body of unwritten law. While some of these rules have been codified by international bodies such as the United Nations, many have not. For example, retaliatory reprisals against acts of Terrorism by a foreign government are still governed by unwritten customs in the international community. Each nation also retains discretion in formulating a response to the aggressive acts of a neighboring state.
In the United States, unwritten law takes on a variety of forms. In Constitutional Law the Supreme Court has ruled that the due process clause of the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments to the U.S. Constitution protects the right to privacy even though the word privacy is not mentioned in the written text of the Constitution. In Commercial Law the Uniform Commercial Code permits merchants to resolve legal disputes by introducing evidence of unwritten customs, practices, and usages that others in the same trade generally follow. The entire body of Common Law, comprising cases decided by judges on matters relating to torts and contracts, among other things, is said to reflect unwritten standards that have evolved over time. In each case, however, once a court, legislature, or other government body formally adopts a standard, principle, or Maxim in writing, it ceases to be an unwritten law.
 
Master PO said:
rights are abilities because i exercise them.
Click to expand...

I have the ability to take a gun and fire it into the body of another person. I can exercise my ability to do that.

According to you that is my right.
 
haymarket said:
I have the ability to take a gun and fire it into the body of another person. I can exercise my ability to do that.

According to you that is my right.
Click to expand...

well first you didn't provide any source of information, which i knew you would not

second you abilities cannot infringe on the abilities of other people, you should at least know that.
 
RabidAlpaca said:
Unfortunately many American Christians don't believe we have freedom of religion, only a freedom to believe THEIR religion. Yes we have that constitutional right and you should avoid hanging around people who disagree or oppose it.

And FYI, Jesus was the kind of person who tore down walls between people, not someone who erected them. I'd question how Christlike someone can be if they consider themselves a "Wall Builder".
Click to expand...

Right...Jesus was put to death because he was tearing down walls.

2 Tim, 1:6-12.... Jesus addressing the 12 disciples

16Look, I am sending you out like sheep among wolves; therefore be as shrewd as snakes and as innocent as doves. 17But beware of men; for they will hand you over to their councils and flog you in their synagogues. 18On My account, you will be brought before governors and kings as witnesses to them and to the Gentiles. 19But when they hand you over, do not worry about how to respond or what to say. In that hour you will be given what to say. 20For it will not be you speaking, but the Spirit of your Father speaking through you.

21Brother will betray brother to death, and a father his child; children will rise against their parents and have them put to death. 22You will be hated by everyone on account of My name, but the one who perseveres to the end will be saved.

23When they persecute you in one town, flee to the next. Truly I tell you, you will not reach all the towns of Israel before the Son of Man comes.
 
Master PO said:
well first you didn't provide any source of information, which i knew you would not

second you abilities cannot infringe on the abilities of other people, you should at least know that.
Click to expand...

I was using one of my abilities - which you said was my right.


Quote Originally Posted by Master PO View Post
rights are abilities because i exercise them.
Click to expand...

The is called reality. Why would I use another source to make that simple and observable point that is true without debate or question?

I can use my ability to fire a gun by shooting another person. According to your statement - that is a right because I am exercising my ability.

And your definition is crap and you know it because the exercise of one persons rights does indeed infringe on other - like my civil right to be served in your restaurant even though you prefer NOT to serve me but are forced to do so my law.
 
haymarket said:
I was using one of my abilities - which you said was my right.

you continue to try to make a point with your own words, however you come up short, because you cannot provide any information...... which i have provided.




The is called reality. Why would I use another source to make that simple and observable point that is true without debate or question?

I can use my ability to fire a gun by shooting another person. According to your statement - that is a right because I am exercising my ability.

And your definition is crap and you know it because the exercise of one persons rights does indeed infringe on other - like my civil right to be served in your restaurant even though you prefer NOT to serve me but are forced to do so my law.
Click to expand...

you cannot infringe on the rights of other people, your rights end where other persons begins

Iam still waiting for you to produce something instead of you telling me your own personal words.
 
haymarket said:
No - your attempts to dodge the question.
Click to expand...

The question you had was answered.

Your question: "Where exactly do they exist without government?" (they = rights)
My answer: "Natural rights, ie., Kant, ie., "self evident"."

No dodging required as I straight up directly answered. :shrug:
 
Master PO said:
you cannot infringe on the rights of other people, your rights end where other persons begins

Iam still waiting for you to produce something instead of you telling me your own personal words.
Click to expand...

Flush down the toilet of life any quotes from anybody else as it is not necessary in a discussion about you pretending that something you believe in is real.


Quote Originally Posted by Master PO View Post
rights are abilities because i exercise them.
Click to expand...


I have the ability to take a gun and fire it into the body of another person. I can exercise my ability to do that.

According to you that is my right.


Rights are used every day of the week that involve forcing other people to do what they may not like nor want to do. Civil rights laws for public accommodations are the perfect example.

Your standard is wrong and reality proves that so.

Your claims about rights not infringing on others is wrong and reality proves that so.
 
Ockham said:
The question you had was answered.

Your question: "Where exactly do they exist without government?" (they = rights)
My answer: "Natural rights, ie., Kant, ie., "self evident"."

No dodging required as I straight up directly answered. :shrug:
Click to expand...

It was dodged and evaded with a claim of blind faith about something you believe that cannot be proven.
 
Master PO said:
you were making the point if its not written its not law
Click to expand...
Exactly and I was referring to "them" being documented and while I do admit that perhaps I should have been clearer on that, I was hoping that you would have taken a bit more honest approach.

you have been proven incorrect on that.
Click to expand...
Only if you are desperately yearning for some form of self declared victory, but not in reality.

natural rights derive with the natural ability of the body
Click to expand...
Yes you have said that already but are still unable to support it. As such it remains an assertion, a wrong one at that. One of the body natural ability is to procreate and essential one too if we are to continue the species. yet oddly enough, no one recognized it as a right. Moreover, all animals have countless abilities very similar if not identical to humans and as natural as those are they still remain meaningless.

which is why they are called natural rights
Click to expand...
And why they still are nothing more than fantasy with nothing rooted in reality.
 
Master PO said:
wrong, rights exist without government they are just not secure and government uses law to secure them
Click to expand...
That is like saying that I have your house but you just did not give it to me yet.

you have outed yourself again by making it known rights are not created by government
Click to expand...
In our society we are the one who do and through our government we secure them.
 
Ockham said:
The question you had was answered.
Your question: "Where exactly do they exist without government?" (they = rights)
My answer: "Natural rights, ie., Kant, ie., "self evident"."
Click to expand...

or Aristotle, the First Republican, who observed common natural behavior. If a bird, for example, tried to take over the nest of another bird rather than build his own nest there would be a fight. Hence, private property is a natural right widely exhibited in nature. Good govt merely understands nature and uses that understanding to help us minimize the fighting.
 
haymarket said:
It was dodged and evaded with a claim of blind faith about something you believe that cannot be proven.
Click to expand...

It was answered, and re-answered and belief has nothing to do with reading Kant or the constitution. Sorry you're having trouble with that.
 
James972 said:
or Aristotle, the First Republican, who observed common natural behavior. If a bird, for example, tried to take over the nest of another bird rather than build his own nest there would be a fight. Hence, private property is a natural right widely exhibited in nature. Good govt merely understands nature and uses that understanding to help us minimize the fighting.
Click to expand...

Such simplicity of observation and understanding that you've identified is way above just a very few's understanding who seem to deny it's existence, claim direct answers are a "dodge" and equate that scientific observation to a "belief" which cannot be proven. :lamo
 
Ockham said:
It was answered, and re-answered and belief has nothing to do with reading Kant or the constitution. Sorry you're having trouble with that.
Click to expand...

It has been dodged and redodged and you still cannot tell us where these magical natural rights can be found outside of the government stating that you have certain behaviors as rights.
 
haymarket said:
It has been dodged and redodged and you still cannot tell us where these magical natural rights can be found outside of the government stating that you have certain behaviors as rights.
Click to expand...

It appears you cannot differentiate between "tangible" and "intangible".
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom