Life / Religion / Philosophy / Science / Polictics

Tag: Rights

  • May We Have A Rational Discussion?

    Apparently not when it comes to atheists who are adamant about stamping out all religion in society and within the daily lives of ordinary citizens of the United States of America.

    I’ll explain in a minute.  First let me say this was not the topic on my mind this evening.  For the last day or so I have been gathering my thoughts on Seattle, Washington’s new minimum wage.  I had planned on writing a political discourse on the pros, cons, and ethics of the whole minimum wage concept.  The minimum wage is an item that impacts us all (at least economically).  It may not be an item of interest to a wide audience, but it is something that most have feelings one way or the other on and I thought it would be an interesting side-bar to tackle.

    However, as I sat down this evening to add this entry to my BLOG, this article caught my eye and I was completely astounded.  The article, for those unwilling to follow the link, is about a Missouri High School principle, Kevin Lowery, who used several off references to “God” at the commencement proceedings of the graduating class.  His remarks may be found in this YouTube video.

    My first thought was “This is news?  Why?”  And as my curiosity peaked I read the article in amazement.  NOT at Principle Lowery’s remarks, or the reaction of the students, nor even the report that the YouTube video has garnered over 84,000 views in about 5 days (I’m not sure what constitutes going viral these days, but it is considerably more views than the few hundred hits I get from the stats on this BLOG).  No, the thing that captured my attention is the anti-religious organizations that crawled out of the woodwork to soundly denounce the commencement address.  For me this is the height of irrational behavior within the story.

    The first group cited within the FOX News Story is the American Atheists (which, ironically enough, is a 501(c)(3) – the majority of which are religious organizations)whose spokesman Dave Muscato was quick to condemn the speech by citing that it “… violated the spirit of the First Amendment separations of religion and government.”  In other words it offended his perceived rights.  It is interesting to me that the front page of the American Atheists site has a headline that reads: “STAND UP FOR YOUR RIGHTS”.  What rights?  There is no meaning, no value, no outcome in the atheist world view, so what does it matter?

    But as I have previously argued, rights must come from somewhere and I’d seriously like to know where Mr. Muscato derives his from.  I know where my inalienable rights come from.  God.  As did the framers of the U.S. Constitution.  Mr. Muscato, as a stated dis-believer in a supreme being (or beings) clearly has nowhere upon which to draw his foundation of rights.  Given his world view, any rights he possesses, whether real or perceived, must clearly come from within the system and are thus subject to the rules of the system.  Which would clearly follow that they are then subjective and subject to change.  I could then argue that the perceived right that Mr. Muscato is clinging to was framed by what were clearly religious individuals and is therefore tainted.  I speculate that Mr. Muscato might argue that the framers of the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution were actually trying to stamp out religion in the country by putting that amendment in.  But if he were to argue this (or anyone else for that matter), I would have to go back to Dr. Richard Carrier’s question of “Are Christians Delusional?” and ask “Who is delusional now?”  Because most historians today would not argue along those lines.  And presented with clear and rational lines of reasoning to the contrary, one would need a convincing argument to bolster their case.  Without such would be to act irrationally.  No, Mr. Muscato is using a framework to defend his position that was put forth by individuals that meet his definition of flawed.  I would then ask “Why is not the amendment then flawed?”  Or why wouldn’t the rights he believes he has be subject to interpretation or change?

    The second group that was cited with a comment is The Freedom From Religion Foundation who also stated that the commencement speech was a “serious constitutional violation” in a letter to Lebanon School District Superintendent Duane Widhalm.  Here we find a similar argument in that once again an atheist group is worried about their perceived right to not have God mentioned at a commencement address at a public school.

    The two questions I’d like to ask about this particular event are: (1) Why are these groups even in existence?  Atheistic individuals and groups should be the epitome of the don’t care attitude.  After all, it doesn’t really matter anyway.  I realize they argue that they are trying to set others free, the Freedom From Religion Foundation even promotes a quote from Miguel Moore, Cleveland Artist… Humanist Chaplain that states as much: “Freedom comes from within, not without.”  But I still ask “To what end?”  What is the purpose behind it all?  In the grand scheme of things it means absolutely nothing.  So why be so adamant about a fight, that at the end of the day, doesn’t really matter who wins or who loses?  You can argue that you are trying to better peoples lives, progress society or humanity, or any number of other worthy causes (some of which religion would argue as well) and it still doesn’t really mean anything because there is no purpose behind the universe.  It is simply a cosmic accident given their world view.

    And the second question I must ask is: (2) Who is the irrational party here?  I mean really?  Those who have a reason to promote an argument because they have a grounded belief that there is something more to what we see and experience and know of the physical universe and who believe that our existence will continue on sustained by a God.  Or those whose very world view precludes any real meaning or outcome and whose propensity to argue the inane would be explained in their paradigm as the results of minute and complex chemical and physical reactions set into motion eons ago and are being played out by a set of physical laws of which we have no control over and can do nothing about.

    Isn’t it interesting that the Atheistic Organizations want to argue vehemently against the voice of Theistic individuals amongst us and yet few Theistic Organizations want to argue that the Atheist individuals need to remain silent in any venue in society.  Public, private, or otherwise?

    Who is the TRUE defender of free speech here?

  • Chasing After Rights

    Our rights are important.  As is what we perceive as our rights.  Rights are where we derive so many of our other political and social concepts from.  Rights, as defined, are those set of items or actions that are afforded due to just claim, legal guarantee, moral principle, or legal principle and authorities.  And rights determine how we are to be treated, what actions we are allowed (and not allowed) to take, and what reactions are allowed.  They form a basis of how we interact with others and the rest of the world.

    When dealing with what is right and what is wrong, and by extension what rights we may or may not have as individual entities on this planet, I believe it only RIGHT that each and every atheist in the world begin by accepting the understanding that there are no rights, they have no rights, and that the mere concept of a right or wrong is a fallacy.

    Lets break this down.  If there is no “supreme being” (or beings as the case may be), although if we were to be clear here, the definition should be “creator“, so if there is no Creator then there can be no design.  By definition there is no design (or we might say Intelligent Design).  If you were to argue that the design lies within the physical and metaphysical laws of the universe, I suppose you could make a case that those laws constitute the design (or the description) of what we see physically around us.  But to then take that and stretch it into some piece of matter’s right is quite a leap of logic and faith.

    If I even begin by granting the atheist the line of reasoning that what we observe as design in the universe is the result of natural and physical laws playing out in some grand scheme over the vastness of time, there are still a lot of unanswered questions with regards to morality, justice, right, wrong, happiness, sadness, love, hate, or just the plain meaning of life.  In the atheistic world view, there is no Creator, and by extension no designer, and thus there are no rights.

    Very, very, very, few atheists are honest enough, principled enough, and reasoned enough, to admit and state that within their world view there is no meaning and no purpose.  What can it be?  You cannot have meaning or purpose without design.  They simply cannot exist without design.  A design exudes a purpose.  And a purpose comes about by design.  Thus, given the atheistic world view of no Creator, there is no designer, which leaves no design within the universe, which leaves the universe absolutely purposeless.  And since there is no purpose, what then becomes the basis for right and for wrong?  Why should there be any basis?  After all, it doesn’t really matter much at all, does it?  And since right and wrong are now regulated to mere concepts that have no meaning, what then becomes the foundation on which we build individual rights?

    And yet the atheist and the theist alike will claim individual rights of humankind in the world.  The atheist will claim some collective conscious that inherently bestows these rights upon individuals.  But that, in and of itself, is a fallacy.  When did we, as all of humankind, ever come together and agree upon and define those rights?  We did not.  To suggest that you or I have any ability to bestow rights upon another assigns a level of supremacy to one or another particular individual that then sets them apart from all the rest.  This in and of itself breaks the very premise of the model.  The only logical conclusion one may draw here is that those rights are granted and bestowed from outside of the system.  This in its very nature lends credence to a Creator.  A Supreme being who by design built a system that has certain inalienable rights woven into the very fabric of its existence.

    This is the conclusion the framers of the U.S. Constitution came to and it is the foundation upon which they sought to establish the system of Government.  Our rights, liberties, and happiness are not what is decided upon by society or humankind.  Rather our rights, liberties, and our very happiness is what is granted and bestowed upon us by the Creator himself.

    Given a theistic world view, conflicts are now resolved against the framework of the Creators design, not of our own.  I do not have the right to then define your pursuit of happiness based upon my own framework of what would satisfy my own happiness or desires, but rather I must weigh your actions against the framework of the Creator himself.

    This is why knowing and understanding the Creator is so important within our lives.  And it is why Theology becomes the foundational science upon which we must base all other pursuits upon.  Theology is the only pursuit in which we may find purpose and meaning to our very existence.  And it that understanding that then begins to build the framework for our interactions with our fellow human beings around us.

    When you seek to impose your morals upon the world you establish yourself as the source of right and wrong.  You set yourself apart and above the rest of humanity.

    The Christian does not set out to impose morality upon the world.  The Christian rather recognizes the design of the moral code designed into the system by the Creator.  It is not MY morality I espouse, but rather the morality designed by the Creator.

    You may draw different conclusions as to the source of the morality within the system.  You may even argue the interpretation and understanding of that morality.  Indeed, Christians have various interpretations of right and wrong amongst themselves (as do theists of all venues).

    What should not be at issue is the design of the rights.  And that design cries out of the existence of a Creator, a God, a Supreme being who has bestowed upon all of humankind (his creation) the inalienable rights of life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.  And that is why my rights, your rights, and everyone’s rights are of the utmost importance.  Because they did not come from you or from me or from society or from an accident of the physical laws of the cosmos.  They came from God.  And you may exert your own force of will and power against them as you see fit (as happens all over the world each and every day), but you can never take them away or alter them or make them your own.  They are secured by God and he will administer them and regulate them as he sees fit.

    Knowing this, pursuing this, understanding this, in its deepest and most intimate depths is key to happiness and peace with those around us and on earth.

  • Where do YOUR rights come from?

    First, let me say thankyou for your patience and understanding while I undertook a move one quarter of the way around the world.  While not completely settled yet, we are starting to get back some of the things we have been without (my computer is just about back to the state it was in when I last shut it down in Hawaii).  It has been a challenging time and there are many challenges ahead, but at least I may now return to LRPSP.COM while facing those challenges.

    But enough of boring you with my personal life, I am anxious to get back on track with discussing the more interesting things in life.  And one of the things that interests me (and I believe a lot of people) is Human Rights – specifically Our Rights as inhabitants of planet Earth.

    I just read Glenn Greenwald’s book “No Place To Hide” where civil rights are referenced no less than 21 separate times and in every chapter.  He quotes Supreme Court Justices (Justice Louis Brandeis – page 187) and hammers the rights of a free people.

    The building I work in has some writing on the wall when you first enter the main doors, the writing says: “We hold these truths to be self-evident …“, which, of course comes from the United States Declaration of Independence.  The phrase is: “We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.”

    There are those amongst us that want to argue the rights of the people of the Earth.  But they never want to stop and consider where those rights came from, who bestowed the right?  What gives individuals the right to even claim rights?  And what happens when your rights are contradictory to my own rights?  What gives any of us the right to express what is right and what is wrong?

    There are the foolish amongst us that try and make some feeble attempt of rights being derived from our own consciousness or from Mother Earth/Gaia.

    So let me get this straight.  All of us can agree that we all have the right to life, to live, to continue to exist, to not die (at least unjustly)?  And thus we know it is wrong to kill, to murder, to take a life?  And we gained this ground truth when?  At the point of “consciousness” of human-kind?

    This is rather amazing to me because, without even realizing it, these folks have stumbled into the one common denominator for all human life.  Our DNA is different, our world-views are different, our finger-prints are different, our retinas are different, we are all the most unique set of creatures ever encountered, but the one thing we all managed to get exactly the same comes down to basic human rights.

    Which is an amazingly structured piece of code.  It tells me, and it tells you, that we each have a right to life.  And there is little to no ambiguity there.  And where do our religious dissenters find this code?  Is it in the DNA?  Is it part of a blood type?  Is it structured in some social engineering?  Why no, it seems to be innate within each and every one of us from birth, embedded as it were, within our very beings, and readily grasped and expressed by our consciousness.

    In other words it is embedded in our spirits.  That part of our being that is Spiritual in nature.  That part of our being that is explored and understood through our Theology.  Or at least I have yet to have an atheistic friend try and explain spiritual matters via a non-Theistic line of reasoning.  How else would one argue the finer points of a human nature that is expressed by more than what we can tangibly see, taste, smell, touch, hear, or mentally visualize of the physical world around us?

    In the words of an atheistic friend of mine, it is a gift … this great consciousness that we all share.  This awareness that allows us to propagate the notion that we are somehow all entitled to rights.  Which is the greatest irony of all time, that the Universe would explode into existence at the point of the big bang, that matter would bump around through 13 billion years of time until life were sparked into existence, and then poof!  That matter bumping around against itself would bestow a gift upon the life it accidently created.

    All right, lets say I accept your model for the sake of argument.  I then assert that my rights have not been fulfilled.  My rights to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness (as understood and expressed by my consciousness) have been taken away and trampled upon.  To whom do I turn?  To whom do I take up my grievances with?  Where is Justice?  As Dr. Ravi Zacharias has said on a number of occasions (and I paraphrase), Atheism makes a mockery of justice.  And the only logical conclusion from there is that it doesn’t really matter anyway.  After all, there is no meaning, can be no meaning, since everything is merely a result of physical laws set into motion so long, long ago.

    So today I ask the question: Where do YOUR rights come from?  The emphasis on the individual nature is important here.  Because if your rights are just some cosmic accident, some whimsical fluke of natural laws, then I say “So what?”  What makes your rights any more or any less valuable or important or necessary of enforcement or protection than any others on this Earth?

    However, for those that join me and the framers of the U.S. Declaration of Independence in understanding and believing that my rights are endowed by my Creator (God), then you, like I, have a champion, a defender, a Judge, and an arbitrator of those rights.  The same God that bestowed them on me, that gave them to me as a gift, is the same God that is going to ensure that Justice is served.  My rights did not come from some cosmic consciousness (which doesn’t make sense or match any model its defenders purport to begin with) or by some accident of physical nature.  My rights are fabricated into my very being by God himself and he will, one day, hold me accountable for them.

    Fortunately, I have an understanding, and an answer for him.