If the Vatican is against Obama he must be on the right track.

[Al68]

(Exodus 31:15) - "For six days work may be done, but on the seventh day there is a Sabbath of complete rest, holy to the Lord; whoever does any work on the Sabbath day shall surely be put to death."

My argument is this: The Vatican does not promote that individuals put another to death for working on the Sabbath regardless of any complaints regarding labor. Though they may complain about labor laws, they do not go to the extreme presented in Exodus - which is seemingly contradictory to the commandment "thou shalt not kill." As they cannot remain consistent within their own system of beliefs, which uses the bible as justification, why should an argument regarding religious scripture be given credibility?

1. I'm not Catholic, but I'm sure they would agree that "surely shall be put to death" does not mean "I hereby instruct Catholics to put them to death". For one thing, you're quoting Jewish Law. Catholics don't live under Old Testament Law. Even if that phrase is interpreted as an instruction, it would be an instruction for the Jewish people at the time, not for others. The Old Testament is of historical importance to Catholics, but they don't live by it.

2. "Thou shalt not kill" is an error in translation. The prohibition is on murder only. Obviously humans must "kill" to live.

 

[tanker]

I generally don't care much for the viewpoint of people who shelter child molesters.

Phew, I was worried this thread was going to devolve into religion-bashing sweeping statements, rather than an objective discussion.

 

[Cyrus]

Phew, I was worried this thread was going to devolve into religion-bashing sweeping statements, rather than an objective discussion.

Did they not shelter priests who were accused of molesting young boys?

 

[Al68]

Just that it is a choice that secular society grants to those that would bear children.

"Rights" are not granted by society. If it depends on the consent of others, then it's not a right. A privilege or entitlement maybe, but not a right. Rights exist independent of the will of society, and exist whether or not they are violated by others.

It's common for people to use the word "right" to refer to a legal privilege or entitlement, but it's a different concept altogether.

Government can protect or defend rights, but it can't grant them because they already exist, or they aren't rights at all.

 

[Phrak]

"Rights" are not granted by society. If it depends on the consent of others, then it's not a right. A privilege or entitlement maybe, but not a right. Rights exist independent of the will of society, and exist whether or not they are violated by others.

It's common for people to use the word "right" to refer to a legal privilege or entitlement, but it's a different concept altogether.

Government can protect or defend rights, but it can't grant them because they already exist, or they aren't rights at all.

Under your claims, a right is not a legal entitlement. You've said what a right isn't but not what it is. Where do these rights as you call them come from?

And more: There's a lot of confusion over this simple word, so casually spread about. Wikipedia defines it: "Rights are legal or moral entitlements or permissions." Without missing a beat, they go on to define rights as expected freedoms. They continue in one section by discussing rights as metaphyical in origin--'natural rights' for one--as though not in contradition with either.

 

[Cyrus]

Under your claims, a right is not a legal entitlement. You've said what a right isn't but not what it is. Where do these rights as you call them come from?

The constitution.

 

[Phrak]

The constitution.

Right, according to the Wikipedia committee's definition. I'd guess you're referring to The Bill of Rights; an enumeration of entitlements. These would be what Al68 said are not rights--or not necessarily rights.

 

[Cyrus]

Right, according to the Wikipedia committee's definition. I'd guess you're referring to The Bill of Rights; an enumeration of entitlements. These would be what Al68 said are not rights--or not necessarily rights.

I don't think he said that at all. In fact, he said quite the opposite:

"Rights" are not granted by society. If it depends on the consent of others, then it's not a right.

A right, as specified in the constitution, does not arise from the consent of others. This is exactly what he was trying to say.

 

[Al68]

Under your claims, a right is not a legal entitlement.

Correct. A right may or may not be legally protected or recognized by government.

Nowhere in the constitution are any rights "granted". The constitution forbids the infringement of rights that are assumed to already exist.

An entitlement is what I have to a Big Mac after I pay for it at McDonalds.

Historically, the word "right" was not confused with "entitlement" like it is so commonly today. And certainly not by educated people. It is today by people who do know the difference for political purposes.

And I certainly have no "rights" that every human who ever lived didn't also have. Would you suggest that "rights" aren't universal. Do you have rights that you would deny that everyone who ever lived had?

 

[Al68]

Right, according to the Wikipedia committee's definition. I'd guess you're referring to The Bill of Rights; an enumeration of entitlements. These would be what Al68 said are not rights--or not necessarily rights.

The Bill of Rights is not an enumeration of entitlements. It's an enumeration of rights. None of which are granted by government or depend on others for their existence.

 

[cristo]

Since nobody seems able to have any type of discussion on religion without getting emotional (and such discussions are against PF rules anyway) this thread is done.