The concept of God is not offensive- ridiculous, perhaps, as an idea anyone would use practically in govnerment, but hardly offensive. I'm not sure why you'd want to cast it that way? To elevate it in to some sort of noble crusade?
Really, at no point did I introduce or am I relying on a concept of God -- that's what you want to keep returning to. This started with some words from Paul Ryan which simply harken back to the Declaration of Independence, which refers to nature and God. So if anyone doesn't accept a concept of God like his, simply substitute nature. (I started with karma as an alternate concept of Creator.) I'm baffled that words from Jefferson or MLK are so controversial as to be ridiculous (if not offensive) to mainstream Americans.
So if rights are not (as Locke and Hobbes pretty much said- are Hobbes and Locke the Red Queen too?) a contract we make with each other, and then agree to enforce, where do these rights you speak of really come from
The Declaration is based on Locke's philosophy, which found equality and a right to liberty to be self-evident, as Jefferson recapitulated. Even the ridiculous Cairo Embassy statement, which Obama and Hillary renounced, referred to a "universal" right to free speech. The concept of a right to free speech, which predates the United States and thus exists outside the body of laws deriving from the Constitution, to me is so fundamental to U. S. history and the U. S. government that I certainly don't accept it as being conditional like a speed limit or a tax rate. If that were repealed or circumscribed, then based on Locke, I'd have to be an outlaw in revolt against tyranny and no longer subject to "a contract". |
