Ron DeSantis on what being conservative means: 'Our rights come from God, not government' | Washington Examiner
By: Washington Examiner
S E E D E D C O N T E N T
Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis said he believes the essence of being a conservative today means recognizing that people's "God-given rights" are on "loan" to the government.
"The foundation of it is understanding the American project," DeSantis told Fox News host Mark Levin on Sunday. "Our rights come from God, not the government. The founders rejected the divine right of kings."
"We have these God-given rights," he continued. "We loan power to the government under a Constitution to protect those rights."
While discussing his new book The Courage to be Free, DeSantis explained that his roots of growing up in "eclectic" Florida with a blue-collar family that held Rust Belt values kept him grounded while attending the liberal classrooms of Yale and Harvard.
"It was so different from what I thought was appropriate that I wasn't influenced by it in terms of it pulling that direction. I rebelled in the other way," the Republican governor said. "I got through Yale and Harvard and came out more conservative than when I went in."
DeSantis touted how those days have emboldened him to resist the influence of the political "swamp" and stand up against attacks from the liberal media.
"They've detached from facts entirely, and it's all about the narrative — whatever narrative they can spin. And they know a lot of these narratives are bogus," DeSantis said. "Here's the flip side of that: When they attack me, our voters, they view that as confirmation that I'm doing a good job."
The Republican governor also offered a point of advice for upcoming conservative political leaders: "Don't be captive to public opinion; shape public opinion."
He noted that producing favorable results is more important than analyzing poll results, which he described as misleading and "static."
DeSantis added that serving the people must be the priority, saying his approach to governing during the COVID-19 pandemic and upholding traditional values has proven "there is a lot of frustration within the country."
"I think what Florida shows is you can stand for the right things, you can take on a a lot of the elites that are really doing damage to our society, and you can win," he said. "There is a better way. There is a better way that people in states can be successful, and I do believe there is a way that United States can be successful once again."
Although the Florida governor has not said he will enter the 2024 presidential race, many GOP voters have indicated they highly favor his candidacy.
Article is LOCKED by author/seeder
So yes, he is a crackpot.
god isn't a US citizen, isn't a registered voter, has no mailing address, has no visible means of support, and is here illegally. he has no rights here according to the constitution. capture and deport.
HA!
I'm not surprised by your shallow understanding of our Constitution.
Two Supreme Court cases have established that non-citizens, even those who are in the US illegally, are also guaranteed due process of the law by the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments.
Let us know when you've captured god.
[✘]
let us know when he surrenders at the border and schedules a hearing date 3 years from now.
[✘]
meh, some trumpster will probably take him out before the primaries...
... somebody in a mouse costume.
So if you don't believe in his "god" you don't have any rights?
And the right wing will defend this.
Saying that their religion has precedence over the constitution.
Well, didn't 'god' write the constitution?
Seems God is becoming a scapegoat for them to do what ever they want.
I read an article the other day about this so called religious family that started some religious based medical sharing scam. They con a lot of people in to donating money monthly into some fund that is suppose to be kind of like insurance and pay for those in need.
They took all the money and invested it in themselves. Bought a bank among other things. Then didn't pay anyone's medical bills. They were screwed.
And because it is a 'religious organization' it is shielded from government scrutiny.
Amazing isn't it. God must love them SOOOOOO much.
It is abuse of God (assuming God can be done so).
Jon Oliver did something about those religious based medical sharing scams, another ripoff to people who needed insurance.
I couldn't believe what I was reading. They scammed millions of people out of their money and left them high and dry with medical bills. And then the government can do nothing because it is a 'religious organization'.
The time for these organizations being shielded needs to come to an end.
They probably paid no taxes either - I don't recall from Jon Oliver's piece if they did either, but I'd bet good money that since they call themselves a 'religious organization' that they pay no taxes. Another ripoff.
They did a lot of things that most of us would be in jail for. Shell companies to move money around, starting their own companies with relatives to funnel money to them, on and on.
There ought to be a law...
There are those who believe that. Or believe thr country should be run by religion.
Even worse, in the bible, you are given a lot of rights that have already been taken away. Does he want to return those rights to the people?
Don't worry a lot of those far right nut jobs want those rights back & are working hard to get them back.
[✘]
But, of course, DeSantis is not really having an biblical discussion; he will clarify to you that he is having a "god-given rights" (in the abstract) discussion. See the nuance?
Where did YOU study theology?
I didn't so I don't pretend to interpret the meaning of the Old Testament.
Can you read? I even cited where in the bible my claims are supported. The verses are in English, so anyone with an understanding of the English language should be able to read them for themselves.
If the bible is the word of god, shouldn't he have made it understandable to even the common man? So read it for yourself.
What a silly question as I wouldn't be responding here if I couldn't.
No, you insinuate that those passages were the law or commandments of god without citing that.
Not in it's entirety, much of the Old Testament is words from the prophets, it also include oral history of the Jewish people written years later. Finally, for those passages that purport to be the word of god, to be effective he would have to write them in a way understandable given the context of the timed and culture.
“…purport to be the word of god…”
….hence the ‘fly in the slaw’… every single ‘word’ is either interpreted or directly written by a man with man driven motives. Motives to either subjugate, frighten, or justify.
You're smarter than me, I don't know the motivations of those ancient Jews.
I insinuated no such thing. I stated where it the bible passages were that supported my claim. I made no claim to it being the "word of god" or his commandments, I leave that to the believers.
So you feel that believers should be able to pick and chose what they want to obey in their bible and what they don't want to. Who gets to decide which passages are the words of god, and which aren't?
So god is not smart enough to know that over time languages change? He's not too bright then, is he? So much for omniscience.
[✘]
“…don't know the motivations of those ancient Jews.”
…and yet those same motivations are somehow being legislated and are becoming the central planks of a major party. Unimaginable.
[✘]
[✘]
Where did YOU?
Thank you for 'cutting through the sound-bite' and getting down to the nougat ("the nitty gritty"). If you notice DeSantis offers a jingoistic platitude about some abstract notion of God-given rights- conveniently conservatives (of his mindset) are put in power to fashion. The model: Patriarchal authority: Do as I say.
MMMMMMM... I love nougat.
I do notice that so many far right nutjobs want the control of the world to be in the hands of the wealthy white men. The rest are put here by their god to serve them. To bad their "god" was neither white not wealthy.
Speak on. . . .
No shortage of men that want to control the [world]
[deleted]
Then it’s pretty hard to understand how a black man got elected POTUS. Twice. All those white men voting against their own interest eh?
Thats just crazy!
This white man gladly voted for Obama twice.
I was voting for my and the country's own best interest.
Actually voted FOR someone instead of against someone for a change.
Well three cheers and a whoopie for you. I voted for his conservative opponents twice. I don't vote against him because he was black or for the other guy because he was white. That does not matter to me. I voted for the better of the the policies they stood for. That being the case, I will most likely never vote for a progressive/liberal/democrat.
Yep, I voted for Obama the first time because I actually hoped he would do what he said. Couldn't vote for him the second time as he had proven himself to be just another politician who is long on talk and short on action for the entire country.
You were far from alone. That was my point.
I find that sort of animus towards white men in general to be blasé.
Who said that?
mgt thinks you shouldn't be able to vote unless you're a xtian.
[✘]
fortunately the most effective methods of dealing with fascists and theocrats are the same...
Where did he say that? Be specific.. provide a link and an exact quote.
So exactly what 'rights' has God given to people?
like the thumper handbook and instruction manual, apparently it's whatever they want to create to benefit only themselves.
[✘]
[deleted]
Life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness are some of the self-evident ones.
“Life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness are some of the self-evident ones…”
god given? No, written by those who understood that religious liberty was allowed, but not the end all.
If you actually believe God gave those rights...
Exactly, you have no inalienable rights, only those granted by your government at this time.
I am starting to think some people around here are actually crackpots...
“…some people around here…”
….comic relief, nothing more, nothing less…
I dunno, seems like I read somewhere that they were "endowed by our creator" and "inalienable".
I'm starting to think some people around here must be in a troll farm in Eastern Europe somewhere, but then I think...."no, they would probably be educated well enough to recognize the Declaration of Independence if somebody quoted it".
A creator doesn't necessarily mean God. I consider my parents my Creators but they were not Gods
Morons think God wrote it I guess.
Those are words written by and most often quoted by white men who at the time also believed their God had made black humans as inferior beings and thus were owed no rights, inalienable or otherwise.
Are you really attempting to claim that Adams/Jefferson et al were referring to their parents?
Statistically, they're probably most often quoted by history teachers.
[nobody was calling you a racist]
We are not the ones that think a man had some voice inside his head telling him what rights we have....
The DeSantis is terrible, the Founders are terrible and America is terrible progression.
Citation?
Or shall we add this to the ever-growing list of shit you make up that people never actually said.
Reading the Anti-DeSantis commentary will give you that impression.
It's actually depressing to see how little people here understand of the Declaration and our founding as well as the basis of entire system of government.
Americans arguing they have no rights other than their rulers deign to give them. I wouldn't have thought that possible. But I guess 1/3 or so were Tories, longing to be told to told what to do by a King. I guess their beliefs never really went away.
So more of the I didn't say that...I didn't mean that bullshit.
You state that God has given rights then try to say no you didn't?
So you actually think rights were given by God and then try to tell me I don't understand?
Delusion.
I understand perfectly.
I believe, like the founders did, that humans have inalienable rights. You believe people only have such rights as their rulers grant them. I get it. Mao was popular with alot of people. Do you still have the little red book?
Wow. Some people really have gone off the deep end.
How funny. The fact that I never did actually say anything of the sort just doesn't seem to even register. I suppose the facts are an insignificant inconvenience in the way of your mindless tirades.
I'm starting to wonder if the real Ender didn't leave his laptop unattended and his annoying little brother isn't posting on his behalf.
That's not what you said, though, is it? Since you're having such difficulty, let's review.
You said:
I noticed you're still having difficulty finding a citation for that.
Now, when Ron DeSantis says "our rights come from God", those of us who actually remember the US History we were taught will immediately recognize the significant historical precedent for that exact view. We understand the idea was so fundamental to the founders of our country that they cited it as a primary justification for unprecedented geo-political action.
However he chooses to develop the point from there should most certainly be scrutinized. Sadly, the state of our educational system has declined to the point where a number of Americans simply lack the intellectual capacity for such scrutiny. Their cognitive abilities are limited to tribal identity.
The Declaration of Independence states that people’s rights were given to them by their creator, the Congress wanted those rights to not be subject to the whims of a king. Liberty is the inviolable birthright of all. The right of revolution follows from this notion of inviolability. The people have the right and the duty to alter or abolish a form of government that becomes tyrannical.
The Declaration expresses the devine in an inclusive way. The god referenced is generic. You can read the words “Nature’s God,” “Creator,” and “Supreme Judge,” and understand them to mean the god you worship.
Unlike the Declaration, the Constitution and the Bill of Rights never mentions god. Its religious neutral. The Declaration explained and justified a rebellion to secure God-given rights, the Constitution is a blueprint for stable and effective government. The Preamble to the Constitution declares the purpose is to “to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general Welfare, and secure the blessings of Liberty.” These are secular objectives.
The Constitution, unlike European governments, promoted no sect and took no position on theology. Article VI provides that “no religious Test shall ever be required as a qualification to any Office or public Trust under the United States.” The First Amendment to the Constitution, provides that “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof.”
I'm amazed to this topic is still generating air play.
Ok, what is the significant historical president for that view?
A lot of blather to really say nothing.
So if God gave these rights, what about the people before biblical times. I guess God gave them rights and they didn't even know it...
What about the ancient Greece who didn't believe in so called God but a bunch of Gods.
It's depressing.
your explanation is going to over people's heads. Too rational. Their minds just short circuit at the word God.
I should have provided a trigger warning.
The Declaration of Independence reads:
These men were so convinced that their Creator had endowed these inalienable rights that they used the fact as justification to "dissolve the political bands" and effectively declare war upon the greatest empire the world had ever known.
In doing so, they sought to:
There was never any question in their minds that their rights came from God. So when DeSantis uses this language, he is attempting to connect his ideas to those of our nation's founders.
I just assumed you would recognize the best-known parts of the Declaration of Independence.
[✘]
I can see that you’ve been guessing all over this seed.
They had even more rights of course.
Except Jefferson could not persuade (he tried though) his newfound countrymen to properly honor the above expression. It was more of white men have inalienable rights (for me) and black people we can't find inalienable rights (for thee) right now.
Now then, can you see the real problem with revisionist history that seeks not to tell it like it happened?
You have explained how the Declaration of Independence (DOI) carried an idea that won its 'day' and had the effect of launching a revolution. However, the idea was slanted because their were men (women and children), Africans (AKA: former citizens) kept captive by the very writer of the draft of the DOI, Thomas Jefferson. And, many other leaders of the new republic.
That certainly is in the D o I but let's look a bit closer. They (the founders) considered only white landowners as being created equal. Did the founders and our constitution treat all people of the US as having that right? No, they did not. That throws a real wrench into the message from God.
There may have never been a question in their minds that the rights came from God, but it seems that God's complete message was, shall we say, ignored based on our actual history.
Yea, ain’t history a bitch.
I agree some of their interpretations are now archaic, but I hesitate to look back over two centuries and project our morals onto people with whom we have zero common experience. Don't judge a man until you've walked in his shoes, and I've never walked in anything made by a "cordwainer".
Well exactly, which makes the earlier characterizations of people who refer to that fact as "crackpots" or "off the deep end" just staggeringly moronic.
That is what they believed. They wrote it down and signed it, even though it proved ruinous for most of them.
I think how well they carried through on those beliefs is certainly a valid question, and I'm sure there is a lot of intelligent discussion to be had there. They obviously fell short by today's standards, evidenced by all the legal changes we've made since then. There is undoubtedly another intelligent discussion to be had examining whether or not we've come far enough in that regard and if not what tangible steps could be taken to move us closer to where we want to be.
Further, just because the founders believed God endowed them with rights does not imply that whatever DeSantis is attempting to do based on the connection he's trying to make with those beliefs is a good idea. That's another possible intelligent discussion in the wings.
But we're not going to be able to have any intelligent discussions until people can pull their heads out of the metaphorical colon that is tribal politics.
The founders were using the word of God and invoked God, our morals today may differ from that time period but I doubt if God's morals have changed and that is what the Founders are using. I walked in many ''cordwainer'' they are called mocassins.
They not only fall short by today's standards but fell short by God's standards which are what they used in the D o I. I have a problem with the Founders using God and not actually following his word which was well-known in the 1700s. But then again they may have had the Doctrine of Discovery in mind or the Papal Bull Inter caetera.
As far as DeSantis, IMO he would be better served to keep to politics and don't use religion to enhance his status.
I don't have a problem with history; just the shortsighted who don't see to know, or care, what history will say about this/that/them! History is history. It can not be blamed for laying it all out there on the line to 'flap' back and forth in the glaring day of the future.
Except: Black Africans and Native Americans and Girls and Women and Homosexuals, and Transsexuals and . . . The 'consent of the governed' is a "bitch," your word choice, to properly secure!
Yes, sometimes the implementation doesn’t measure up to the ideals.
they used the god crap back then as a social weapon to bring together the masses and to threaten their opposition. nobody was going to speak negatively about religion in a country that was burning and torturing alleged heretics less than 100 years earlier. some kind of religious belief was the common thread between people in the colonies. it's the classic tactic you're either with us or against us, them or us bullshit that's still being used today. it still works well on the less intelligent and less educated. now stand back and look at all the people that use god/religion like that in almost every type of american media. what else do they have in common? yeah.
it's the human comedy. the people that are so up in arms about the alleged teaching of how fucked up some of american history is to kids in public schools, are the same ones screaming the loudest about how fucked up america is now, because of other americans that don't go to church or vote the same way.
I listen to a lot of rwnj radio because I like sales and marketing techniques. sales and marketing is psychologically based as is propaganda. the disturbing trend that I've heard developing on these radio stations, which are religious based and owned by alleged religious families, is the justification and blending of protecting themselves against all their enemies, mostly leftists and liberals and moving towards a god based government. the stuff available in the mainstream is relatively tame compared to the backwater media sources. if there are any doubts about what I'm stating, I would urge those people to listen to the amount of hate speech that is broadcast on xtian stations. even the religious all preaching stations will slide the propaganda in as news.
however, I did learn that I'm apparently in cahoots with the chinese communists in their scheme to kill or enslave all xtians. /s
The founders of the United States saw, came, and took what they wanted (everything in the end) and left $hit for those they did not welcome.
Oh the irony, because if you read into the Declaration of Independence, you can see these men ultimately booted out King George III and Great Britain from the colonies and immediately set about creating a new hierarchy (not equal) with white men on top!
1 The United States free, kept enslaved people kept in bondage.
2. The United States Refused to listen to the grievances of the enslaved.
3. The United States Refused to listen to the grievances of the 'host' (the Indian nations).
4. The United States took away from the Indians their charters, abolished their most valuable Laws, and altered fundamentally the Indian Forms of our Governments
5. The United States waged war against Native peoples of Great Turtle Island, North America, A'nowara'ko:wa.
And so forth and so on.
The perversion to all of this? The early colonists, the 'NASTY ONES,' could have spared this nation the dread of their being here had they been good men (the nasty ones were not) had they truly meant to come in peace. No, they can to take everything and trample on what they could not! It is what it is.
You know what's pathetic? The 'shade throwers' trying to save something of their 'faces' (thought, they can shield history from its exposure) by vainly trying to condemn people for telling it like it is.
I don't hate "White People." Never have, and now I am old/er. What I detest with a passion is bullshitter who try to condemn and gaslight people for reading history plain and clear as it is written! All for their own 'passions' which they declare by evidently lying that they don't possess.
So unlike other people before them an of their time.
Is that a question?
I as well as it’s obvious that many here have a very shallow and superficial knowledge at best of our history.
This is why DeSantis is stepping up to be the next 'man' for conservatives after Trump. Because conservatives like their boys and men to have a swagger. A strong handshake. A belief in hierarchy. An understand of a black and white world where power is force and not simply mental. Where God is "head," man is next, woman comes after; children. A hierarchy that does not mix up the states of existences.
Conservatives do not have a proper place in their worldview for girls who wish to be boys; boys wishing to be girls. Or, people who wish to be liberals.
In short, they simply can't SEE that 'world' coming to be here in the United States. (Although, it is a lie straight out of "H" that the success of this country has ever been just because of conservatives alone.)
Very mundane, eh? Not exceptional.
We can’t all write as exceptional and clear as you CB.
3.4.42 is not about you, Drinker 'ry! It is about the comment in and of itself!
Conservatives stigmatized "LOLA" and mocked her endlessly. Great classic song.
Moreover, DeSantis will 'declare' it outlaw material today were he to remember the classic!
I've gone to Gab.com on occasion. That site is a full spectrum of hate, fear and delusion.
yeah, that wouldn't be a good idea for me...
That's by virtue of being born human. Our rights are based on and enumerated in the Constitution.
Everyone has their own definition of "their Creator"
Since I don't have ESPN I don't know the minds of Adams or Jefferson. Jefferson was a not particularly religious man
I don't remember reading that in the DoI. God was never mentioned in that document. The only word used to reference a higher power is "Creator". I think they left that vague for a reason
I literally copied and pasted it from the National Archives website.
Well, according to Jefferson, Adam's, and the rest of the signers of the Declaration of Independence, they are endowed by God.
You may feel differently, and the framework they created allows for that.
But there really isn't any question about their beliefs on the matter or how committed they were to those beliefs.
They wrote them down and signed them, knowing it would mean their execution if their efforts failed.
Define “Nature’s God,” “
The rest of the page is pretty interesting, also. Makes the case for FFs for being more Deist than Christian
Flowery speech used by the liberally educated at the time. Making more of it doesn't make it true. The DoI is a social contract that tossed defiance in King George's face. It does nothing outside of historical significance. The Bill of Rights came later after many rounds of debate. Debate wouldn't be necessary if a divine hand were tossing out gifts.
This doesn't make any fucking logical sense - IF
How can
???
He think he means serving straight white affluent people must be the priority?
Ah, yes. The tactic of saying things have failed and only he can fix them! I must default to the opinion he thinks our electorate is stupid and his attacks on public education is one way to keep people stupid and him in power.
Yet it does work on some people, sadly...
I have been saying for decades that some want the masses to be uneducated so that we can become like feudal lands - where the serfs do all the work & pay all the taxes to support the wealthy.
It has been written that in many ways conservatives and by extension republicans see the world in black and white. And that is a okay until one looks at reality and observes colors existing, moving, and being all around us.
I used to be a black or white person. I am so much more open and happy now that I see the colors...
I don't see race as a major defining characteristic of a persons. I believe that ther eis more genetic variation within racial groups than between them. Of course we all haved different life experiances and education as well.
Race is an unscientific, culturally structured, flawed way of looking at perceiving and interpreting reality.
MLK Jr agreed with you but I digress.
Well, he was just a preacher man.
Awww. Where is it. . ah, here it is . . . let me just. . . okay;
Good for you and me. Well-spoken. Because you and I are not "the problem" manifesting itself on a daily basis in local or national politics. Now, when we can get the millions of conservatives who use a pretense of not seeing color to actually not let skin color form the basis of their politics (conservatives going after liberals) the country can advance as the multifaceted jewel that it truly, properly, is.
Do you deny that in addition to conservatives, white and Black liberals have racial prejudices?
I concern myself with ongoing racial prejudices. There are AGGRESSORS and DEFENDERS our task is to discern and distinguish who is doing what to whom!
Racial prejudice among liberals. . .probably, but based on the liberal holding science in high regard I can not right now think of a NOTABLE case as science shows us that we are all the same 'underneath.' Moreover, since liberals tend to follow/bo open to the sciences wherever it/they 'lead' there is limited time for racial "stagnation" training on the superiority of one tribe or type of human 'creature.'
To be clear, I do not 'hate' on conservatives or some conservatives without (just) cause. I have lived the oppression and suppression in my early years of life—even when others surrounded me and blunted or protected me from such directly. As I grow older (I can look back and see it in stark relief.) In addition, as a commenter on social media I can tell you which class of people between liberals and conservatives are open to change and which have a closed 'aperture' to change. Conservatives choose to wage political combat and 'promise' to do so much worse.
Once again. I have no idea of what you are saying:
I changed several words, hope it helps. I have been out and just returned. I took a 'moment' to try to respond quickly, as I have some work I must get out before the 'short' night is over.
Do the best you can with what is there. 
It's all platitudes. Our system of government has 3 constitutional branches which can latch on to and 'deflate' the ego of any leader instantly, over time, or any time. DeSantis knows this or shall soon know it-should he leave "republican controlled" Florida. Classic politicking: All ego and "too many words" to get elected for election sake!
Yes, to a populist base that can't parse the difference between government and god.
[✘]
There is no such thing as "rights" that are not guaranteed by a government or controlling authority. "God given rights" is a utopian idea.
I don't remember there being a bill of rights in the bible.
Yes, that why our Declaration included,: That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed"
You could read that and Natural Rights, the distinction was that they are inalienable not dependant on the whims of a king. Are you unfamiliar with John Locke and the Enlightenment?
John Locke's description of rights was used to take land away from the Indians, who the Europeans decided were not using the land according to Locke's principles (quite convenient for the Europeans).
If only the Indians had heard of Locke, maybe they would have been better prepared.
A poor implementation doesn't discredit the concept of Natural Rights.
[✘]
What happened to the Indians rights to own and control their land? Or were rights only for those familiar with the Enlightenment?
[✘]
What rights do you think you automatically get just by being human?
You may very well have a "natural right" to this or that good.
But what do such rights mean if there is nothing to enforce those rights? It is just philosophical talk.
Yours is the libertarian viewpoint, and it is a utopia.
I do believe you have the right to breathe
And shit and fuck....Oh wait, some people want to regulate that last one. Come to think of it, taking a dump has a bunch of rules too....
Like the people who founded this country, I believe all humans have the right to life, liberty and property.
A right to life? Yeah, a man made construct from people that want to live and not be killed by some jackass.
Liberty? A man made construct of a set of rules for society.
Property? A man made construct to where people want the right to own their own land instead of everything owned by the king.
And I for one am glad there are rules. I want to live in a civilized society
Better a libertarian than a totalitarian, and its not a "utopia". As the Declaration notices, governments can and will violate those rights and it precisely when governments cease to respect our natural rights that one's duty to be loyal and obedient to that government terminates.
ut what do such rights mean if there is nothing to enforce those rights?
Yes, John. That's what government is supposed to do. The basis of its legitimacy is protecting those rights.
I agree with rights. I like rights, but the idea that they are conferred by God and not by a government is a utopia.
If they were conferred by God the Indians would still have their land.
Do you think people are arguing goats created the right to life? Of course it's man made, it men recognizing the inherent right that people have to live
man made construct of a set of rules for society.
You believe liberty is a set of rules? So people living without rules have no liberty?
ant the right to own their own land instead of everything owned by the king.
As you make Locke's argument against Hobbes. Priceless.
Please read Locke, or Montesquieu or even Rosseau. You aren't making coherent arguments and don't seem to have a clue what's going on. Its just strawman arguments piled upon ignorant misstatements.
What is your definition of liberty? Do whatever one wants?
So you think that the right to own property did not come from the states wanting to be independent from the king....
Ok....
And that's Locke's justification for taking the natives lands, since they didn't live in a civilized society that claimed ownership of land by improving it, but rather remained in a state of nature.
To add to this, the right to liberty is a construct we made up as we no longer wanted to be under a king's thumb.
Lol. No. The right to property is individual. Government was created to better protect the right.
IF like John, you believe the state owns everything, than you have no right to anything and whatever you possess, you possess upon the whims of the King.
The states, meaning us. We made that right so people could own property and not just the lords...
Again, I said the states, as in the country of ours, the colonies.
JohnR, likely would tell you that to frame natural rights as a tool of the powerful (alone) is an abuse of terminology. And, why does it appear that you support rights for the powerful, while 'downing' an all powerful state that grants (allows) powerful people. . . the power they wield?
Not to the 'party' that is literally choking you to death.
Sorry friend TG-I couldn't resist. (Pray for me to do better!)
You also believe that the "how" of it should be regulated too. Don't just speak aspirationally, get down and 'dirty.'
Ender and TG, exactly.
It is the human capacity to be 'genteel' (gentlemen/ladies) that takes humanity up from the level of criminal savagery. How could community exist with it? We would all be just sociopaths without any desire or interest in others surrounding us in the world.
That said, yes, life/liberty/property rights are designed to permit the powerful and the not so powerful to have something they can call their own in this world. So, community is a good thing. And community can't exist without its constructs.
The only right any animal has upon being born is the right to die.
It's aspirational. That is, high-sounding language used to inspire people to look away from government of people to some abstract notion. A notion that I will remind us all exists in a bible that is diverse (a multiplicity of denominations) and still diversifying itself! Truth be told, the "faithful" don't even know which expression of the Christianity faith is the "holiest undertaking of them all." And as you can figure: DeSantis does not know either. He is just trying to place himself out of 'reach' by appealing to a higher power. Ironic, isn't it: That God can be a political 'tool' intended to silence people.
I think he was talking about inherent human rights that no government can create or give...like life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. His detractors are apparently too dim to see this.
His views were overwhelming accepted in Florida. He's promoting traditional values, he is well spoken and articulate, very intelligent and charismatic, and has a high likeability factor.
[✘]
So you think there are no religious Liberal people?
So it is ok for a 'religious' person to say that only their so called laws apply?
Do you want religion to run government?
That’s a helleva reach from what I said. Are all liberal people Atheists and Progressives? See how crazy that sounds.
No, same as it is not okay for a non religious person to say they don’t. At least, if one is fair minded that is.
Not in the least but I also don’t want tyrannical bureaucrats from the east and west coasts running it either but elections do have consequences don’t they?
There is a difference between someone breaking a law and someone that says their only laws come from God...
So you don't want bureaucrats running things. Uh, they are all bureaucrats, even DeSantis...
Personally I think both extremes are equally crazy. As do most Americans I believe.
Well, there are bureaucrats and there are bureaucrats. You aren’t trying to imply they are all equally radical are you?
Imo they are taking this beyond politics. There is a faction of the republican party that thinks religion should control every aspect of people's lives.
I would take the extreme that worships government over the extremes that only want religion. At least you can air your grievances against government where as religious people seem to be able to change their tune about what God supposedly wants depending on their own whims.
These people you are responding to would do an about face if their rights were threatened? Like being forced to attend a specific church or being forced to attend church period on Sundays and having to give up their Sunday leisure activities.
And that's what politicians like DeSantis want to do. He wants to make religion the center of your life whether you like it or not. I hate fucking politicians who think their bible trumps my Constitution
And there is a faction of the Democrat party that thinks government should control every aspect of life. You help make my two extremes point very well.
I wouldn’t accept either in the extreme. Period.
Airing your grievances? That and a couple bucks will get you a cup of coffee with an extremist.
I am starting to think that some people's God doesn't believe in free will.
Who made that claim? John Brown?
If saying rights are God given, even when they are not, yes they are putting their religion above all else.
Not only that, believing the delusion that the rights we have right now only came from God...
This seed is amazing. All DeSantis did was state his belief in the Declaration of Independence. That's it.
Look at all the outrage (most of it batshit crazy and having nothing to do what he said) from just supporting the DOI.
Again, no they aren't. If you believe Jefferson was a religious fanatic trying to create a nation governed by religion, you were really failed by your teachers.
I do not call saying that what we enjoy today was given to us by God as stating his belief in the DOI.
Especially considering what the people had to go through fighting for our 'liberty'.
It is denying reality.
Now you are just pulling shit out of the air.
Okay; if we are EVER going to get anything useful accomplished we are going to have to relearn to trust each other. This is simply getting out of hand! We, all of us, need to get it through our thick. . .recalcitrant minds that we are "ONE" and this land we occupy is now for ALL OF US.
Stop with the tribalism (on both sides). Move back to the center. We are not 'ALIENS' and invading 'forces' when we are citizens born and raised here.
Our bureaucrats deserve all our respect, because they are hired to do a service-and they want the jobs/duties/responsibilites to serve! We can't keep 'farming' out government 'laborers' every time a new administration comes onboard. That's just immature/reckless/inconclusive.
It is time for 'everybody' to come back in from 'expansion zones' and get close-knit understanding of what matters in this country; the success of this people that we are and will yet become.
Let it became with you, and yes with me too!
NOTE: Have you noticed there are people sitting in the 'bleachers' watching the field of 'play' here, but who refuse to strive or contend with the rancor on full display. We can integrate/coach them back on the field if we just modulate and once again have/display care for one another.
You're asking an awful lot.
Look...I respect people with religious beliefs...as long as they are not pushing them down my throat or threatening my way of life. There are plenty of people of belief who I enjoy good conversations with and there are those who don't understand their own concept of God. Those are the people I dismiss.
And don't come prattling up to my front porch on a Saturday morning and then judge me because I'm still in my pajamas and eating a bowl of cereal. Yeah, it's 10 AM but you don't know what time I actually got up and that I have to wait an hour after taking my meds before I can eat. Yes, that actually happened
Your posts are so illogical and internally inconsistent that that they are impossible to understand what point you think you are making.
Let me make this as simple as I can.
DeSantis is paraphrasing the Declaration of Independence. In it Jefferson said God created the rights to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness and when a government doesn't protect those rights, its not a just government and rebellion is justified. Thus the King's misgovernance and refusal to respect those rights justified rebellion. If you believe that only a government can create rights, than a government can't be unjust. Because you've conceded the government has the power to create and remove rights upon its whim because there is no other source of authority.
If you think for two seconds I'm sure you can appreciate why totalitarians reject the Jefferson/DeSantis view in favor of the absolutist "the state creates all rights" approach.
DeSantis is simply repeating what Jefferson and the founders believed. So unless you believe Jefferson and the founders were religious fanatics trying to create a nation governed by an absolutist religion, you have no basis to attack DeSantis for agreeing with Jefferson.
So who declares a right? If God declared a right, who did God tell?
It is amazing to me what we can get hung up on here.
You don't have to think of them as god given rights, you can think of the as Natural Rights or inalienable rights that humans have as a function of being alive. Our forefathers in the DoI and Constitution were making a distinction between rights granted by a king or government that can also be withdrawn versus inherent rights.
They believed that the way to secure inalienable rights, was to consent to giving up a small amount of our freedom so that government has the authority to protect our rights.
kind of looks like the republicans want to be able to dictate what rights most americans have...
Of course. Now on to bullshit about 'inherent rights'.
What the fuck is that? Oh yeah, a man made construct...
As an atheist, its clear that there's a certain subset of atheists who can't hear or deal with the word God without a fuse being blown in their minds. Logic goes out the window and their prejudices and stereotypes take over. Its a hurdle they can't get over.
They miss seeing the forest for running into trees. Reductio ad absurdum.
“…with the word God…”
Believe whatever you want to believe. But never assume your beliefs should in any way be legislated. To think otherwise is to diminish the very intent of our founding principles.
Logic has been thrown out the window when you think God somehow gave people rights...
“…when you think God somehow gave people rights...”
Exactly. Whose god? Why god?
Give us, as human beings, credit for attempting to make it a better world…racially, societally, and globally.
What else is legislated if not beliefs? 99% of people believe murder is morally wrong and legislate accordingly. Is that wrong?
Get that strawman!
This seed may have set a record for responses that have nothing to do with anything said in the article or responses. But a group of posters have jihad to wage against Jefferson and the DOI, so it goes on and and on
Seems you have the strawman. If people didn't come up with life, liberty etc, then who did?
Question for Mrs Wry ... If Mr. Wry is alone in the forest and talking to himself, is he still stupid? ;--)
“..,murder is morally wrong…”
Clever phrasing. Murder is of course a wrong action. But we don’t need any religion to define it for us. Civility rules.
I'd ask Mrs Wry and get back to you, but she will just chastise me for wasting my time here.
I love how the word God gets thrown around by people who don't even know what God is. They certainly don't act like they do
I'm sure Mrs Wry is secretly proud of your contributions to the betterment human understanding made on NewsTalkers...
Sleep well knowing you make a difference?
Thanks, but Mrs Wry is a school teacher and doesn't have time for this nonsense.
they swing it around like a dead cat, as if it's supposed to intimidate people that aren't required to attend their fucking madrasas and toss money in their collection plates.
historically, it all depends on who's getting killed...
It falls under the “haters gotta hate” rule.
Subconsciously I think it’s an inferiority complex for many.
So you quote the Declaration of Independence, a government document, to say that yes there are God given rights...
Exactly what right has God granted anyone?
You're confused and befuddled. I never said anything approaching your assessment of my comment
Where in the world do you think the phrase life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness comes from...
It comes from the founders of the country deciding life without a king...
They were talking about creating a government built on those things...
Specifically Thomas Jefferson...he wrote the DOI
Have you read the declaration of independence?
have any trumpsters read it?
Just the centerfold.
Didn't think I'd see the left denouncing the Declaration of Independence today, but here we are.
God given rights and two dollars will get you a cup of Dunkin Donuts coffee.
In practicality there is no such thing as rights that are not guaranteed by a government.
So a government document is now religious dogma....
[✘]
So do you think the document was written by God?
Of course not. I've never heard anyone claim it was.
Then it is not religious law, it is man's law.
I can say I have a "god given" right to spit in your face. So what?
Go to the middle of nowhere and build a cabin and fence off a couple acres of land. According to John Locke you can now claim ownership of that parcel of land.
How far do you think that will get you if some bandits come along and tell you to get the f off THEIR land?
If the land is registered by the government you may get help keeping the land, otherwise it is dog eat dog.
hen it is not religious law, it is man's law.
No one is claiming its religious law. Is that what you think DeSantis said?
He said government should bend to his religious will...
What a good analogy to Locke's "inalienable" natural rights. Among these fundamental natural rights, Locke said, are "life, liberty, and property."
who died and made John Locke God?
I am not saying it is not possible that we have "god given rights". I'm saying they dont mean anything practical without government enforcement.
Why is John Locke more persuasive than some philosophers who advocate community property? It is just a point of view that Europeans accepted.
That may be the silliest thing of your that I've read.
A truth that our Declaration of Independence found self-evident
[deleted]
[✘]
And used to challenge a monarchy. Populists like DeSantis want to form a new one and have us thank him for it.
What the Founders wrote up in the DoI is a social contract. Like all contracts its only good if all parties participating keep participating in good faith. The DoI says, the American people agree to be governed under the rules written. Except, not all the people actually consented as rebellion happened very quickly after the formation of this new nation.
What a crazy statement. As has been pointed out numerous times, Locke's theory is more libertarian than anything. Attacking DeSantis for espousing libertarian beliefs and then accusing him of setting up a monarchy is just the sort of insanity that usually follows the use of with the word fascism. He wants to deregulate the economy, he's a fascist!
DeSantis may be spouting Locke, but he's not espousing libertarian beliefs.
He says all animals are equal, but some animals are more equal than others.
He absolutely did not.
the constitution is the only thing standing in the way of some of these religious fanatics being strung up from the steel beams of the smoldering ruins of their rwnj xtian madrasas.
[quote from 7/13/22 article in heartland institute regarding heartland/rasmussen poll not cited.]
[✘]
[✘]
[✘]
[✘]
It's just so out of touch, isn't it? But that is okay; we're hold the line on NT against right-wing glibness. They lie and write they don't offend, but here they are guilty as charged of a series of obnoxious comments! No better, possibly even worse, than those they complain against.
Does this just apply to the US or is this to include other countries? And what God there seems to be a number of them. And exactly what are the rights he's talking about, does the 2nd amendment count as a right, kinda of difficult to see that God would loan us rights that breaks one of the more important commandments.
Oh well, just another populist preaching his brand of ''religion/politics''.....Onward Christians Soldiers.
every 500 years or so these fucking thumpers need to be forced back onto church property or put under it.
I would love to see Ron "Water Head" DeSantis prove the existence of God, for starters.
Mr. Freedum strikes again...LMAO
Ron DeSantis Called A ‘Tyrant’ As Trump Supporters Barred From Book Signing
theguardian
I’m sure god is having a good belly laugh about this moronic statement. As if it would give a fuck.