Are unalienable human rights applicable only in certain countries?

by ROB Thu Mar 22, 2012 9:23 pm

Oftenwrong posted this thought provoking message on another board.

oftenwrong wrote:
RockOnBrother wrote:
… freedom of speech is guaranteed by law…
Law should ideally be Universal, but in fact it depends where you are in the World whether an action (including speech) is legal or sanctionable. Simply crossing an international border can render something you are carrying illegal. (Try taking an apple through US Customs).

Freedom of speech is by no means a worldwide concept.

Is Oftenwrong correct? Are unalienable human rights for all, such as freedom of speech, applicable only in certain countries? Or should all humans worldwide enjoy these rights?

by oftenwrong Thu Mar 22, 2012 11:03 pm

To clarify my motives, European Law differs from the laws of the United States in protecting minorities from being discriminated against.

That is a fact, and although there may well be a philosophical dimension that other people may wish to debate, my own view is The Law is The Law, and we either obey or choose anarchy.

Incidentally, common usage in British writing is to use the word "inalienable". Some grammatical forms in the American Constitution are naturally those of the time in which it was written, but no longer in everyday use here.

by ROB Thu Mar 22, 2012 11:43 pm

oftenwrong wrote:
Incidentally, common usage in British writing is to use the word "inalienable". Some grammatical forms in the American Constitution are naturally those of the time in which it was written, but no longer in everyday use here.

The terms “unalienable” and “inalienable” are identical in all respects save fore the initial vowel. I use both, but I prefer “unalienable” for two specific reasons:

Whereas the term “inalienable” sounds a bit tepid to me, as in “Please sir, may I have my rights, if it suits your fancy?” the term “unalienable” conveys power, as in “That’s my right and I’m taking my right, and if someone chooses to get in my way, heaven help them, damnit.”
These words inspire me daily (note italicized, emboldened text): “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. That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed…”

Power to the People!

by astra Thu Mar 22, 2012 11:55 pm

That's the thing about the English language RoB

Look up ungracious and ingracious
http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/ingracious
(obsolete) ungracious; unkind.

The UN word is now obsolete. (It was on another thread, that you American bunch of reprobates Wink

declared that the language HAS to move on!)

by ROB Fri Mar 23, 2012 12:39 am

Astra, my Celtic brother, assuming that Scots, Scots-Irish, and Irish are all Celts,

One more thing other than “Remember the Alamo!” that Texans and Scots have in common: “Damn the English, we’ll do what we wanna do!”

I do what I wanna do, and what I wanna do is say “unalienable” as I raise my clenched fist to the sky. I also raise my fist when I hear certain other words in context. Check out Brother Marvin.

Star Spangled Banner - Marvin Gaye
https://www.youtube.com/v/QRvVzaQ6i8A

Marvin sings from my heart. Many sacrificed, some of whom died. Read one story by clicking the links.

On June 21, 1964, three young civil rights workers, James Chaney, 21, Andrew Goodman, 20, and Michael Schwerner, 24…

Andrew Goodman

Michael Schwerner

James Chaney

That’s why, to me, the question raised by Oftenwrong is so important.

by Shirina Fri Mar 23, 2012 1:03 am

I think the more pertinent question is:

Should these in/unalienable rights be forced upon a society that believes in a different set of in/unalienable rights? Or perhaps a culture that doesn't believe in in/unalienable rights at all?

Obviously we here in the West would naturally believe that, why yes, those rights should be universally applied, but do we have the right or the mandate to enforce those rights in every corner of the globe, even when they are unwelcome?

by ROB Fri Mar 23, 2012 7:00 am

oftenwrong wrote:
To clarify my motives, European Law differs from the laws of the United States in protecting minorities from being discriminated against.

Are you saying that European Law (if such all-encompassing law exists) does not protect the unalienable human rights of all residents therein?

I certainly agree that French and Belgium laws, which I believe do not encompass the whole of Europe, do not protect certain unalienable human rights unto all of their residents, which provides convincing evidence of the hypocrisy inherent in both governments’ citizenry and elected/appointed authorities.

However, given that English Common Law forms the basis of United States federal law and the laws of forty-nine of the fifty sovereign states, and that ideas, concepts, and principles exposited rather ponderously but extremely thoroughly by John Locke in The Second Treatise of Civil Government 1690 (about eighty-six years before the Declaration of Independence an about two hundred one years before the United States Constitution came into force with its Bill of Rights appended), I would think that British law includes such unalienable human rights as are found within the United States Constitution, such as free exercise of religion, freedom of speech, freedom of the press, freedom of peaceable assembly, right to due process, right to speedy trial, protection from unreasonable search and seizure, protection from cruel and unusual punishment, right of citizens to vote regardless of “race”, creed, color, national origin, religion, or gender, and equal protection of the laws.

Perhaps I’m mistaken, and if so, my bad, but I thought all Locke-ian countries shared these freedoms, rights, and protections.

oftenwrong wrote:
… my own view is The Law is The Law, and we either obey or choose anarchy.

That is exactly what equal protection of laws includes. All are both equally protected by the law and equally responsible under the law for abiding by the law.

Shirina wrote:
I think the more pertinent question is:

Should these in/unalienable rights be forced upon a society that believes in a different set of in/unalienable rights? Or perhaps a culture that doesn't believe in in/unalienable rights at all?

Unalienable human rights should not and cannot be “forced” upon the people, but access to unalienable human rights for all residents therein should be forced upon officials of governments resistant to such access by all.

It’s good enough for me, so it’s good enough for those living under the oppressive thumb of self-important tyrannical dictators.

Shirina wrote:
Obviously we here in the West would naturally believe that, why yes, those rights should be universally applied…

Once again, if I enjoy it, why should I be complicit in denying access to it to others?

Shirina wrote:
… but do we have the right or the mandate to enforce those rights in every corner of the globe, even when they are unwelcome?

We don’t just have the right; we have the duty.

by trevorw2539 Fri Mar 23, 2012 8:49 am

RoB Quote
We don’t just have the right; we have the duty.

Your post is full of 'this is what I/we believe, others must believe the same way'.

And that's the way much of the world see the US.

We're right, you're wrong. You do it our way.

And that's why the US is not welcome in so many countries.

Quote RoB

Unalienable human rights should not and cannot be “forced” upon the people, but access to unalienable human rights for all residents therein should be forced upon officials of governments resistant to such access by all.

When will people learn that you cannot force any/your beliefs on anyone. You can force them into submission, but you cannot change their hearts. The one thing the Inquisition and the Taliban did/do not understand.

Your post is too long and much is irrelevant to the point I am making. People can read your whole post above.

by oftenwrong Fri Mar 23, 2012 10:23 am

Shirina wrote:I think the more pertinent question is:

Should these in/unalienable rights be forced upon a society that believes in a different set of in/unalienable rights? Or perhaps a culture that doesn't believe in in/unalienable rights at all?

Obviously we here in the West would naturally believe that, why yes, those rights should be universally applied, but do we have the right or the mandate to enforce those rights in every corner of the globe, even when they are unwelcome?

British Law superimposed upon native customs in India, forbade the Hindu practice of suttee whereby a widow cast herself upon the flames of her husband's funeral pyre. A variation similarly outlawed by the British rulers was where women sometimes suffered immolation before their husbands’ expected death in battle, in which case the burning was called jauhar. Rajputs practiced jauhar, most notably at Chitorgarh, to save women from rape, which they considered worse than death, at the hands of conquering enemies.

by trevorw2539 Fri Mar 23, 2012 11:03 am

Oftenwrong quote.
British Law superimposed upon native customs in India, forbade the Hindu practice of suttee whereby a widow cast herself upon the flames of her husband's funeral pyre. A variation similarly outlawed by the British rulers was where women sometimes suffered immolation before their husbands’ expected death in battle, in which case the burning was called jauhar. Rajputs practiced jauhar, most notably at Chitorgarh, to save women from rape, which they considered worse than death, at the hands of conquering enemies.

Excuse me for being thick. Not sure of the reason for the post. Are you agreeing with, or against, imposing 'our' will on others. Embarassed

by ROB Fri Mar 23, 2012 1:28 pm

trevorw2539 wrote:

RoB Quote
We don’t just have the right; we have the duty.
Your post is full of 'this is what I/we believe, others must believe the same way'.

My post is not “full of ‘this is what I/we believe, others must believe the same way’” because my post contains neither the words “‘this is what I/we believe, others must believe the same way’” nor words with equivalent or similar meaning.

trevorw2539 wrote:
And that's the way much of the world see the US.

The topic I’ve chosen for this thread is not “the way much of the world see the US.” I’ll discuss with you the topic I’ve chosen for this thread, “Are unalienable human rights applicable only in certain countries?”, whenever you choose.

trevorw2539 wrote:
We're right, you're wrong. You do it our way.

And that's why the US is not welcome in so many countries.

“We’re here to help you achieve unalienable human rights denied to you by tyrants.” That’s why the United States of America is welcomed by freedom-loving people world wide.

trevorw2539 wrote:
Quote RoB

Unalienable human rights should not and cannot be “forced” upon the people, but access to unalienable human rights for all residents therein should be forced upon officials of governments resistant to such access by all.

When will people learn that you cannot force any/your beliefs on anyone. You can force them into submission, but you cannot change their hearts. The one thing the Inquisition and the Taliban did/do not understand.

The United States has not “[forced] them into submission” in quite a while, and never to the extent that European conquerors forced billions into submission from 1492 through the 1960’s, a time period of about four hundred seventy years.

The number one colonial power that forced as many as a billion plus people at a time into submission during its reign as queen of the seas is, of course, your native United Kingdom of Great Britain an Northern Ireland, which only recently in its past, relatively speaking, was compelled to release from subjugation, for example, India (nearly a billion persons at its liberation), Pakistan (including Bangladesh), whole swaths of Africa (Egypt, Nigeria, Kenya, Ghana), whole swaths of Middle Eastern Asia (Iraq, Palestine), whole swaths of East Asia (Malaysia, Singapore). And that list is far from complete.

These words from Y’shua bar Yosef, Y’shua Moshiach, Jesus son of Joseph, Jesus the Christ, might serve you well:

“Do not judge so that you will not be judged. For in the way you judge, you will be judged; and by your standard of measure, it will be measured to you. Why do you look at the speck that is in your brother’s eye, but do not notice the log that is in your own eye? Or how can you say to your brother, ‘Let me take the speck out of your eye,’ and behold, the log is in your own eye? You hypocrite, first take the log out of your own eye, and then you will see clearly to take the speck out of your brother’s eye” (Matthew 7:1-5).

trevorw2539 wrote:
Your post is too long…

If my “post is too long” for you to read, then perhaps you might consider refraining from doing that about which you feel negative. I, of course, welcome your thorough reading of any and all of my posts, but I would never seek to compel you to do so.

by ROB Fri Mar 23, 2012 1:47 pm

For the record: The facts regarding British subjection noted in the post authored by me directly above in no way diminish my gratitude and appreciation for the United Kingdom’s fundamental contributions to liberty, justice, and democracy worldwide.

Without John Locke, I doubt that the Declaration of Independence could have been written.

Without William Wilberforce, after whom a historically Black US university is named, slavery in the United Kingdom might have lingered for decades, and the Royal Navy might not have ravaged slave trade on the high seas wherever its ships roamed.

Without “the few”, Hitler’s hordes, escorted from above by Goering’s Luftwaffe, might have swarmed across the Channel and destroyed democracy in my time.

Without the British heroes of Iraq and Afghanistan, millions of precious human souls might still suffer under Saddam’s beasts and the taliban.

I am far more appreciative of the United Kingdom than I can convey with words.

by **astradt1** Fri Mar 23, 2012 1:59 pm

I aways like it when Americans (USV) start to talk about British Imperialism whilst forgetting their own histroy of Colonialism........

There are still thriving indigenous poplutaions in most parts of the world which were subjected to British Imperialism, can the same be said of American Colonialism?

Back on subject.....

No country should have the right to impose it's beliefs and ideas on another.

The west would and is objecting to the idea of Shira Law so why should it be any different the other way round..

And to assume that everyone wants to have the 'Freedoms', which it is claimed we in the west 'enjoy' would be wrong....

Look at what happened when the old USSR fell....a few became very very rich whilst the majority have to struggle to make a living.......A lot like the USA.......

I await the 'concrete thinking' response with interest....

by ROB Fri Mar 23, 2012 3:04 pm

astradt1 wrote:
I aways like it when Americans (USV) start to talk about British Imperialism…

Since you “always [spelling corrected] like it when Americans (USV) start to talk about British Imperialism”, allow me to please you by doing so.

Recent population statistics of colonies subjugated by British Imperialism:

India: 1,205,073,612
Pakistan: 190,291,129
Bangladesh: 161,083,804
Egypt: 83,688,164
Nigeria: 170,123,740
Total: 1,810,260,449
Nearly six time (576.8%) the population of the United States (313,847,465)
About one quarter (25.8%) of the population of the world (7,021,836,029)

Quite an impressive haul, and this list is far from complete.

astradt1 wrote:
… whilst forgetting their own histroy of Colonialism........

One cannot forget that which does not exist. In other words, the United States has no history of colonialism.

by trevorw2539 Fri Mar 23, 2012 3:12 pm

If my “post is too long” for you to read, then perhaps you might consider refraining from doing that about which you feel negative. I, of course, welcome your thorough reading of any and all of my posts, but I would never seek to compel you to do so.

Are unalienable human rights applicable only in certain countries? Dessin_anime_101

RockOnBrother
Moderator

Posts: 1290
Join date: 2011-10-07

Are unalienable human rights applicable only in certain countries? Empty

I read through your post, but did not 'Quote' the parts not relevant to my point. It takes too much space.

I have no problems with your citing the British Empire as 'tyrannical'. No one would deny that.

Re: Are unalienable human rights applicable only in certain countries?

by RockOnBrother Today at 1:28 pm

trevorw2539 wrote:

RoB Quote
We don’t just have the right; we have the duty.
Your post is full of 'this is what I/we believe, others must believe the same way'.

My post is not “full of ‘this is what I/we believe, others must believe the same way’” because my post contains neither the words “‘this is what I/we believe, others must believe the same way’” nor words with equivalent or similar meaning.

Unalienable human rights should not and cannot be “forced” upon the people, but access to unalienable human rights for all residents therein should be forced upon officials of governments resistant to such access by all.

Does that mean you don't believe you're right. Why force on others that which you don't believe.

We’re here to help you achieve unalienable human rights denied to you by tyrants.” That’s why the United States of America is welcomed by freedom-loving people world wide.

Tell that to the Middle East. And the West Bank, who are bombarded mainly by US supplied armaments. Tell that to the Cubans you have shunned so long. Take your rose tinted specs off.

I don't have the right to tell others how they must behave. I can only behave the way I feel is right.

For me an inalienable right is to have a home and food, care for those who haven't where possible. We don't seem to have that right fulfilled in our own country yet. Do you?
In fact, there are many things we need to get right before telling others what they must do.
Perhaps we should all get our own houses in order before we tell other countries what they must do.

Matthew 7:1-5. Thanks for the compliment. I must have said something right. Those verses are usually quoted when people are on the defensive. Or haven't you noticed.

Perhaps I can reciprocate.

'Let him that is without sin cast the first stone'. Jesus to the rulers who were trying to catch him out. Wink

Have your reply and then lets agree to differ. Smile

by **astradt1** Fri Mar 23, 2012 4:54 pm

Roc, you never fail to disappoint in your effort to be superior to all other posters....Thanks for the spelling correction...or in your selective reading, understanding and quoting of what others post....

This

Recent population statistics of colonies subjugated by British Imperialism:

* India: 1,205,073,612
* Pakistan: 190,291,129
* Bangladesh: 161,083,804
* Egypt: 83,688,164
* Nigeria: 170,123,740
* Total: 1,810,260,449

* Nearly six time (576.8%) the population of the United States (313,847,465)

* About one quarter (25.8%) of the population of the world (7,021,836,029)

was your response to my full statement of.....

I a(l)ways like it when Americans (USV) start to talk about British Imperialism whilst forgetting their own histroy of Colonialism........

There are still thriving indigenous populations in most parts of the world which were subjected to British Imperialism, can the same be said of American Colonialism?

See you missed the second part which make the whole more understandable.........

And thank you for confirming that all of these former British territories have thriving indigenous populations, as I had previously stated .

Now can you turn your attention to US colonialism, which you seem to think never happened!. The original British colonies on the north american continent were just thirteen colonies at the time of independence with much of the rest of the continent owned and occupied by 'Native American Indians' but much of that land is now owned by them? What is the population level of Native American Indians today?

Do you not consider the taking of land from the indiginous population colonialism?

by Shirina Fri Mar 23, 2012 5:02 pm

There are still thriving indigenous poplutaions in most parts of the world which were subjected to British Imperialism, can the same be said of American Colonialism?

The Philippines, Hawaii, Japan, S. Korea, etc. etc.

by oftenwrong Fri Mar 23, 2012 5:31 pm

Shirina wrote:
There are still thriving indigenous poplutaions in most parts of the world which were subjected to British Imperialism, can the same be said of American Colonialism?
The Philippines, Hawaii, Japan, S. Korea, etc. etc.

Those eteceteras cloak places such as the ones called "Banana Republics" where the US Importer had first sight of any legislation that might impact on its business. The Panama Canal, Mafia control of pre-Castro Cuba, Puerto Rico whose natives are "American" without a vote, and most important of all the "Capitalist Colonialism" that exported US automobiles, Cola and Cornflakes at prices that squashed the local producers flat. Incidentally the CIA acted as an occupying power in places such as Chile and Nicaragua to destabilise the democratically elected government. Add the invasion of Grenada to the "Colonial" labelling.

by trevorw2539 Fri Mar 23, 2012 6:21 pm

Whaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa.

Sorry about this Shirina

The AMERICAN CONSTITUTION IS THE AMERICAN CONSTITUTION. It applies to the American People. It applies in lands owned by, governed by America, oh and American Embassies. It does not APPLY to the rest of the world.

Wave your Star-spangled banner. Let us wave our Union Flag (well until Scotland leaves us) and others wave their flags. Get on with getting your own society right, and leave us, and others to do the same. Oh. Except when it comes to oil supplies. Neutral

Mike Treder from the Institute for Ethics and Emerging Technologies wrote this an article worth reading (The Meaning of Freedom)

One way to think of this is the difference between “freedom of” (or “freedom to”) and “freedom from”—a point eloquently made by President Franklin Delano Roosevelt in his State of the Union Address delivered on January 6, 1941:

We look forward to a world founded upon four essential human freedoms.

The first is freedom of speech and expression—everywhere in the world.

The second is freedom of every person to worship God in his own way—everywhere in the world.

The third is freedom from want—which, translated into world terms, means economic understandings which will secure to every nation a healthy peacetime life for its inhabitants—everywhere in the world.

The fourth is freedom from fear—which, translated into world terms, means a world-wide reduction of armaments to such a point and in such a thorough fashion that no nation will be in a position to commit an act of physical aggression against any neighbor—anywhere in the world.

"Four Freedoms" speech: http://edsitement.neh.gov/lesson-plan/fdrs-four-freedoms-speech-freedom-fireside

Securing freedom from fear and freedom from want is very likely to entail some collective, organized action. That kind of activity is often carried out most effectively and efficiently (although, admittedly, not perfectly) by the government. If we want to live in a society where freedoms are protected and where the opportunity to exercise freedom is assured, we have to rely on some form of governance. So far, liberal representative democracy seems to do the best job of it.

Note also that Roosevelt spoke in “world terms.” He and his colleagues (including his wife, Eleanor, one of the greatest women of the 20th century) operated according to a vision in which the United States belonged to a family of nations. This family was interdependent, cooperative, and shared common values. The U.S., in their eyes, would act as a member of that family—a leading member, to be sure, but not a belligerent or domineering one.

Oh dear. Now I'm banned:(

Moderator. Not sure about copyright. Whether the Roosevelt passage is copyrighted or not. The rest is part of a longer article.

by ROB Fri Mar 23, 2012 6:23 pm

Trevor,

Differentiate between forcing on tyrants and forcing on the people. I could give less than a _________ (fill in the blank with your favorite four letter word) about Saddam, Adolf, Josef, Id Amin, Pol Pot, that damned obscenity in Zimbabwe (Mugabe), the cavalcade of obscenities in Nigeria, and closer to home, Papa Doc and baby Doc, all tyrants, all of whom, if I had my way, would have been forced or would be forced to (1) take up a double barrel twelve gauge filled with double-ought buckshot, (2) place the two barrels on their temples, and (3) pull both triggers simultaneously.

Meanwhile, I do not support, never have supported, and never will support forcing the people of Iraq, Germany (and the countries liberated from German Nazi tyranny), all of the nations which suffered under the tyranny of Stalin’s Union of Soviet Socialist Republics, Uganda, Cambodia, Zimbabwe, Nigeria, and Haiti to do anything they don’t damned well choose to do when finally freed from the monsters.

Perhaps you don’t understand Power to the People? Take a listen.

Now to selected excerpts from your post:

trevorw2539 wrote:
Does that mean you don't believe you're right. Why force on others that which you don't believe.

As partially stated, and I hope fully implied, above, I would definitely force that which I believe upon tyrants who usurp power that rightfully belongs to We the People of their nations. I believe each and every one of these beasts ought to blow their own brains out and thereby vacate their own existences. I further believe that the people of the countries they have tyrannized or now tyrannize ought to be free to choose their own fates, thereby actualizing in their own lives the idea expressed variously as “Power to the People”, “We the People”, “governments instituted among men deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed”, and in numerous other ways which describe the idea.

If you need more clarity on that, please tell me, and I’ll endeavor to make it as clear as I can.

RockOnBrother wrote:
“We’re here to help you achieve unalienable human rights denied to you by tyrants.” That’s why the United States of America is welcomed by freedom-loving people world wide.

trevorw2539 wrote:
Tell that to the Middle East.

You mean We the People of Tunisia, Egypt, and Libya who threw off dictatorial tyrants in search of liberty and justice for all in the Arab Spring of 2011?

trevorw2539 wrote:
And the West Bank…

You mean those who would choose to cease launch terrorist homicide bomber attacks against innocent Israeli Jews that they have sworn to drive into the Mediterranean Sea in to complete the Jewish genocide initiated by their hero, Adolf Hitler, who exterminated six million Jews, one third of the Jews then in existence in the world?

trevorw2539 wrote:
Tell that to the Cubans you have shunned so long.

You mean the Cubans who try so desperately to escape Castro’s debacle that they clamber aboard anything that floats in often fatal attempts to cross ninety miles of open ocean to reach freedom in Florida?

trevorw2539 wrote:
Matthew 7:1-5. Thanks for the compliment. I must have said something right. Those verses are usually quoted when people are on the defensive. Or haven't you noticed.

Not so with me. This teaching of Y’shua Moshiach is taught by me onto persons who cannot clearly see the specks of sawdust in others’ eyes because of the six-by-four beams hanging out of their own eyes.

trevorw2539 wrote:
Perhaps I can reciprocate.

Please do.

trevorw2539 wrote:
'Let him that is without sin cast the first stone'. Jesus to the rulers who were trying to catch him out.

That’s an excellent teaching. Please share that teaching of Y’shua Moshiach with all who cast stones at the United States of America whilst abiding in a nation that once subjugated countries that now house more than one fourth of the world’s population.

by ROB Fri Mar 23, 2012 6:29 pm

astradt1 wrote:
Re: Are unalienable human rights applicable only in certain countries?
by astradt1 Today at 16:54

Roc [more]

RockOnBrother wrote:

Total: 1,810,260,449

Nearly six time (576.8%) the population of the United States (313,847,465)

About one quarter (25.8%) of the population of the world (7,021,836,029)

RockOnBrother wrote:
“Do not judge so that you will not be judged. For in the way you judge, you will be judged; and by your standard of measure, it will be measured to you. Why do you look at the speck that is in your brother’s eye, but do not notice the log that is in your own eye? Or how can you say to your brother, ‘Let me take the speck out of your eye,’ and behold, the log is in your own eye? You hypocrite, first take the log out of your own eye, and then you will see clearly to take the speck out of your brother’s eye” (Y’shua bar Yosef, Y’shua Moshiach, Jesus son of Joseph, Jesus the Christ, Matthew 7:1-5).

Done. Good evening to you, sir.

by witchfinder Fri Mar 23, 2012 6:30 pm

I fear that the distinction between what is freedom and what is not freedom has often been confused in the United States.

For example, in a true democracy would any political party ever be banned other than in exceptional circumstances such as in a state of war ?, what exactly did the Americans fear when they banned the Communist Party and led a witch hunt against "suspected" communists, and how is this democracy.

In most cases I believe that we in the west should mind our own business and keep out of other nations affairs, the exception to the rule would be if we ourselves are directly threatened, or if murder, torture, suffering or inhumane activity is been committed on a large scale, in such a situation I have no problem in NATO - the EU or the US acting as policemen.

by **astradt1** Fri Mar 23, 2012 6:39 pm

Re: Are unalienable human rights applicable only in certain countries?

New post by RockOnBrother Today at 6:29 pm

astradt1 wrote:
Re: Are unalienable human rights applicable only in certain countries?
by astradt1 Today at 16:54

Roc [more]

RockOnBrother wrote:

* Total: 1,810,260,449

* Nearly six time (576.8%) the population of the United States (313,847,465)

* About one quarter (25.8%) of the population of the world (7,021,836,029)

Done. Good evening to you, sir.

What the flying fig is this post about!!!!!!!

_______________________________________________________________________
Addendum

Ha so you in your infallibility forgot to cut paste the following..........

RockOnBrother wrote:
“Do not judge so that you will not be judged. For in the way you judge, you will be judged; and by your standard of measure, it will be measured to you. Why do you look at the speck that is in your brother’s eye, but do not notice the log that is in your own eye? Or how can you say to your brother, ‘Let me take the speck out of your eye,’ and behold, the log is in your own eye? You hypocrite, first take the log out of your own eye, and then you will see clearly to take the speck out of your brother’s eye” (Y’shua bar Yosef, Y’shua Moshiach, Jesus son of Joseph, Jesus the Christ, Matthew 7:1-5).

Sorry Roc but I am well aware of the faults of Britain present and past, but too many americans(usv) have a total blind spot when it come to US Colonialism as you have so clearly shown........

by ROB Fri Mar 23, 2012 6:43 pm

Moderator. Not sure about copyright. Whether the Roosevelt passage is copyrighted or not. The rest is part of a longer article.

Trevor,

Go to Google or Bing, bring up the article, swipe the url (the link) from the address bar, and paste it at the bottom of your quoted text. As long as the quote is not too long, you’re good to go. Your quote is eleven lines total, so you should be okay.

by trevorw2539 Fri Mar 23, 2012 9:01 pm

RockOnBrother

Sorry I just can't take you seriously. You talk about killing those you think need killing and you often mention the teaching of Jesus, the man of peace. How do you reconcile killing your enemy with loving your enemy. With the sermon on the mount.

You mean We the People of Tunisia, Egypt, and Libya who threw off dictatorial tyrants in search of liberty and justice for all in the Arab Spring of 2011?

Don't kid yourself. The power in Egypt is the Army.

Libya is , and always will be, fragmented.

Tunisia Congressional report Dec. 2011

Tunisia’s transition raises a wide range of questions for the future of the country and the region.
These pertain to the struggle between reformists and entrenched forces carried over from the former regime; the potential shape of the new political order; the role and influence of Islamism in the government and society; the question of how to transform the formerly repressive security services; and the difficult diplomatic balance—for the United States and other actors—of encouraging greater democratic openness while not undermining other foreign policy priorities.

You mean those who would choose to cease launch terrorist homicide bomber attacks against innocent Israeli Jews that they have sworn to drive into the Mediterranean Sea in to complete the Jewish genocide initiated by their hero, Adolf Hitler, who exterminated six million Jews, one third of the Jews then in existence in the world?

No. I mean the Arabs who were dispossessed of their land in the setting up of Israel. I accept the Israeli's right to Israel. I also accept the right of the Palestinians to have a homeland. Reconciling the two is almost impossible, despite the fact they are genetically and family brothers.
Ask yourself how you would feel if the UN decided to appropriate a couple of USA States and give them as an independant homeland to the indiginous Indians.

You mean the Cubans who try so desperately to escape Castro’s debacle that they clamber aboard anything that floats in often fatal attempts to cross ninety miles of open ocean to reach freedom in Florida?

And if the USA hadn't shunned the Cubans in the first place?

'Let him that is without sin cast the first stone'. Jesus to the rulers who were trying to catch him out.

Not so with me. This teaching of Y’shua Moshiach is taught by me onto persons who cannot clearly see the specks of sawdust in others’ eyes because of the six-by-four beams hanging out of their own eyes.

Still don't get it, do you.

I'll not comment anymore.

Thanks for your advice on the copyright, by the way.

by ROB Sat Mar 24, 2012 1:49 am

trevorw2539 wrote:
RockOnBrother

Sorry I just can't take you seriously.

Your choice.

trevorw2539 wrote:
You talk about killing those you think need killing and you often mention the teaching of Jesus, the man of peace. How do you reconcile killing your enemy with loving your enemy. With the sermon on the mount.

Jesus’ teaching:

“Do not think that I came to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I did not come to abolish but to fulfill. For truly I say to you, until heaven and earth pass away, not the smallest letter or stroke shall pass from the Law until all is accomplished. Whoever then annuls one of the least of these commandments, and teaches others to do the same, shall be called least in the kingdom of heaven; but whoever keeps and teaches them, he shall be called great in the kingdom of heaven” (Y’shua bar Yosef, Y’shua Moshiach, Matthew 5:17-19).

The Law, a commandment:

“Whoever sheds man’s blood, by man his blood shall be shed, for in the image of God He made man” (YHVH Elohim, Eternal Causative Power, Creator, Author, Owner, Sovereign of all that is, was, and ever will be, Genesis 9:6).

Jesus’ commandment:

“Go therefore and make disciples of all the nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit, teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you, and lo, I am with you always, even to the end of the world” (Y’shua bar Yosef, Y’shua Moshiach, to his apostles, Matthew 28:19-20).

Paul’s teaching:

“Every person is to be in subjection to the governing authorities. For there is no authority except from God, and those which exist are established by God. Therefore, whoever resists authority has opposed the ordinance of God, and they who have opposed will receive condemnation upon themselves. For rulers are not a cause of fear to good works, but to the evil. Do you want to have no fear of authority? Do what is good and you will have praise from the same, for he is the minister of God to you for good. But if you do what is evil, be afraid, for he bears not the sword in vain, for he is the minister of God, an avenger to execute wrath upon the one who practices evil” (Paul, an apostle of Y’shua bar Yosef, Y’shua Moshiach, Romans 13:1-4).

trevorw2539 wrote:
The power in Egypt is the Army.

Libya is , and always will be, fragmented.

Tunisia Congressional report Dec. 2011

Tunisia’s transition raises a wide range of questions for the future of the country and the region.
These pertain to the struggle between reformists and entrenched forces carried over from the former regime…

It took at least two hundred twenty-six years for the United States to progress from tolerating slavery to inaugurating a Black American as forty-fourth President of the United States of America (Treaty of Paris 1783 to inauguration of Barack Hussein Obama Jr. 20 January 2009).

It has taken Australia, Canada, New Zealand, the United Kingdom, and the United States seven hundred ninety-seven years to progress from the tyranny of absolute monarchy to ownership of country and government by We the People (coerced signing of Magna Carta by King John 1215 to now).

History teaches that progression to real democracy takes centuries. A people who have never had democracy will not get it right the first time, but they must start somewhere.

RockOnBrother wrote:
You mean those who would choose to cease launch terrorist homicide bomber attacks against innocent Israeli Jews that they have sworn to drive into the Mediterranean Sea in to complete the Jewish genocide initiated by their hero, Adolf Hitler, who exterminated six million Jews, one third of the Jews then in existence in the world?[/color]

trevorw2539 wrote:
No. I mean the Arabs who were dispossessed of their land in the setting up of Israel.

You mean the Arabs who ganged up and attempted to exterminate all Jews and drive Israel into the Mediterranean Sea beginning in 1948?

RockOnBrother wrote:
You mean the Cubans who try so desperately to escape Castro’s debacle that they clamber aboard anything that floats in often fatal attempts to cross ninety miles of open ocean to reach freedom in Florida?[/color]

trevorw2539 wrote:
And if the USA hadn't shunned the Cubans in the first place?

The USA has not “shunned” Cubans. Go down to South Florida. Remember Mariel.

trevorw2539 wrote:
'Let him that is without sin cast the first stone'. Jesus to the rulers who were trying to catch him out.

RockOnBrother wrote:
Not so with me. This teaching of Y’shua Moshiach is taught by me onto persons who cannot clearly see the specks of sawdust in others’ eyes because of the six-by-four beams hanging out of their own eyes.[/color]

trevorw2539 wrote:
Still don't get it, do you.

I get it “good.”

trevorw2539 wrote:
Thanks for your advice on the copyright, by the way.

No problem. Just remember to keep it short and cite.

It’s kind of a “bother”, but it’s in the interests of all of us to be as meticulous as we can about keeping within copyright protocol.

by trevorw2539 Sat Mar 24, 2012 3:06 pm

If a man commits a murder, that man must be killed

If a man knocks out the eye of another man, he shall weigh out ½ a mina of silver.

Code of Ur-nammu circa 2100BC

Go therefore and make disciples of all the nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit, teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you, and lo, I am with you always, even to the end of the world” (Y’shua bar Yosef, Y’shua Moshiach, to his apostles, Matthew 28:19-20).

As far as I am aware this appears in no early manuscript until about 400AD.

Every person is to be in subjection to the governing authorities. For there is no authority except from God, and those which exist are established by God. Therefore, whoever resists authority has opposed the ordinance of God, and they who have opposed will receive condemnation upon themselves. For rulers are not a cause of fear to good works, but to the evil. Do you want to have no fear of authority? Do what is good and you will have praise from the same, for he is the minister of God to you for good. But if you do what is evil, be afraid, for he bears not the sword in vain, for he is the minister of God, an avenger to execute wrath upon the one who practices evil” (Paul, an apostle of Y’shua bar Yosef, Y’shua Moshiach, Romans 13:1-4).

Don't understand why your quote. The person qualified to carry the sword is the authority, the magistrate, no-one else.

If we take the above quote from Romans literally, then it must be that the tyrant is 'Godgiven', and any opposition is against God. Of course we know it isn't literal. It's specific to the time and place. circa AD 57 in Rome.

It's hardly surprising Paul tells his listeners to obey the Romans. He was a freeborn Roman himself. A card he played often in his ministry.

by ROB Sat Mar 24, 2012 3:48 pm

trevorw2539 wrote:
The AMERICAN CONSTITUTION IS THE AMERICAN CONSTITUTION. It applies to the American People. It applies in lands owned by, governed by America, oh and American Embassies. It does not APPLY to the rest of the world.

Wave your Star-spangled banner. Let us wave our Union Flag (well until Scotland leaves us) and others wave their flags. Get on with getting your own society right, and leave us, and others to do the same.

Notice the italicized, emboldened text:

“I pledge allegiance to the flag of the *United States of America, and to the Republic for which it stands, one nation under God, with liberty and justice for all.”

Quick analysis:

We are not pledging allegiance, pledging loyalty, to a piece of cloth; we are pledging loyalty to an idea, “to the Republic for which it stands.”
Republic = representative democracy; thus, we are pledging loyalty to a government owned by We the People in which We the People delegate our inherent power to govern ourselves to representatives elected by We the People. Ownership of our government never devolves from We the People unless we choose to abdicate our inherent ownership by absenting ourselves from the ownership process.

My Dad took me to the voting poll for the first time when I was six years old. He took me inside the voting booth, held me up so that I could see the ballot, and we read the ballot together. He explained everything as we went along, answering all of my questions. Finally “we” voted, and he explained to me that “we” were voting for the best person for each office. It was a gubernatorial election, and I remember to this day the person for whom “we” voted (he was elected).

For a republic to work, ownership must be in the hearts of the people.
Under God = to secure Creator-endowed (God-mandated) unalienable human rights unto all men (gender, “race”/ethnicity, national origin, religion inclusive, in other words, all mankind), governments are instituted among men (once again, all inclusive), deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed (in other words, a representative democracy, a republic).

Notice that “under God” is not “under religion” or “under religious authority.” It’s not “under the Archbishop of Canterbury”, it’s not “under the Pope of Rome”, it’s not “under the Prophet of Salt Lake City.”

Notice also that God, i.e., the Creator, is identified only insofar as his role in endowing unalienable human rights unto all mankind is concerned, He is the endower, and since he hasn’t un-endowed anyone, anyone who takes those unalienable rights from anyone is an usurper of the worst kind, whatever her/his title may be, Uncle Adolf, Uncle Josef, Idi the idiot, Pol Pot, Papa Doc and baby Doc, Mugabe the mugger, Saddam the sadist, those aya-whatevers in Iran, all have titles, and all are usurpers of what rightfully belongs to We the People of the various nations in which these usurpers immorally subjugate humans.

Belief in God is not necessary to support government under God; one only need believe with all one’s heart that unalienable human rights are owned by the people, and that no man, councils of men, or governments instituted among men, possesses the authority to disparage, to abridge, those rights,
With liberty and justice for all = with liberty and justice for all. Not all “white men”, not all “Protestants” or “Catholics”, not all “males” (all is gender inclusive), not all “citizens”, but all, period. If you
Re alive and sucking oxygen, all includes you.

So to believe that each person should wave her/his flag and look inward belies the meanings of the two flags you’ve mentioned, the Stars and Stripes and the Union Flag.

In fact, as an American, I tear up when I think of the Union Flag and the nobility it represents and has represented my entire lifetime. As for the soldiers, airmen, sailors, and marines who serve under its banner, well, there is one such soldier that posts on Cutting Edge who held a US Marine in his arms as he died after doing all he could do and more to save his life. Then, a few years later, this noble British soldier journeyed across the water and across much of the North American continent to comfort the marine’s family and to let the family know that their loved one was with a loved one, the British soldier, as he died.

That Union Flag represents far more than the cloth of which it’s made.

trevorw2539 wrote:

“… four essential human freedoms.”

“… freedom of speech and expression - everywhere in the world.”

“… freedom of every person to worship God in his own way - everywhere in the world.”

“… freedom from want - which, translated into world terms, means economic understandings which will secure to every nation a healthy peacetime life for its inhabitants- everywhere in the world.”

“… freedom from fear - which, translated into world terms, means a world-wide reduction of armaments to such a point and in such a thorough fashion that no nation will be in a position to commit an act of physical aggression against any neighbor - anywhere in the world”

(Franklin Delano Roosevelt, State of the Union, 6 January 1941. Retrieved 24 March 2012 from http://edsitement.neh.gov/lesson-plan/fdrs-four-freedoms-speech-freedom-fireside)

You’ve quoted Franklin Delano Roosevelt, and you’ve done so quite appropriately, in my opinion. FDR didn’t consider these freedoms as something to be enjoyed just by Americans USV; he portrayed these essential freedoms as precious gifts which all mankind should enjoy. That’s something I can endorse with all o my mind, heart, soul, and strength.

by ROB Sat Mar 24, 2012 5:17 pm

trevorw2539 wrote:
If a man commits a murder, that man must be killed

If a man knocks out the eye of another man, he shall weigh out ½ a mina of silver.

Code of Ur-nammu circa 2100BC

Not God’s Word, so outside of curiosity, I’ve no real interest.

trevorw2539 wrote:
Go therefore and make disciples of all the nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit, teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you, and lo, I am with you always, even to the end of the world” (Y’shua bar Yosef, Y’shua Moshiach, to his apostles, Matthew 28:19-20).[/color]

As far as I am aware this appears in no early manuscript until about 400AD.

The various books were complied over time. As far as I know, these are the words of Y’shua bar Yosef, Y’shua Moshiach, and these are the words against which I weigh my own devotion to my Lord and Savior. In other words, sometimes I’m a Christian.

trevorw2539 wrote:

Every person is to be in subjection to the governing authorities. For there is no authority except from God, and those which exist are established by God. Therefore, whoever resists authority has opposed the ordinance of God, and they who have opposed will receive condemnation upon themselves. For rulers are not a cause of fear to good works, but to the evil. Do you want to have no fear of authority? Do what is good and you will have praise from the same, for he is the minister of God to you for good. But if you do what is evil, be afraid, for he bears not the sword in vain, for he is the minister of God, an avenger to execute wrath upon the one who practices evil” (Paul, an apostle of Y’shua bar Yosef, Y’shua Moshiach, Romans 13:1-4).
Don't understand why your quote.

I’ll do my best to clear it up.

Notice the italicized, emboldened text, different from my post above. These portions of the passage set out the test for genuine authority.

trevorw2539 wrote:
The person qualified to carry the sword is the authority, the magistrate, no-one else.

“The person qualified” receives her/his delegated authority from the reservoir of all authority, “there is no authority except from God.” If the person in authority has not received her/his power from God, the person has no genuine authority, and is simply a usurper.

“The person qualified to carry the sword” is also “the minister of God, an avenger to execute wrath upon the one who practices evil”, thereby confirms God’s mandate that “Whosoever sheds man’s blood, by man shall his blood be shed, for in the image of God He made man” (Genesis 9:6).

trevorw2539 wrote:
If we take the above quote from Romans literally, then it must be that the tyrant is 'Godgiven'…

All tyrants are usurpers, because tyrants are not “a cause of fear… to the evil”; tyrants are “a cause of fear to good works.” That’s exactly opposite of what Paul is teaching us here about genuine authority.

My opinion only, but since Paul was writing to Jesus’ ecclesia at Rome, I assume that Roman authorities read each line. If Paul had directly said “the Roman emperor is an usurper, the Roman emperor is false authority”, I doubt that the letter would have gotten through. As written, the Roman authorities probably stamped this letter “RUSH –SPECIAL DELIVERY”, thinking Paul was calling for obedience to the emperor, when Paul was actually calling for obedience to God.

Notice also that there is no “theology” in this passage. Paul states that she/he that is “not a cause of fear to good works, but to the evil” is “the minister of God to you for good.” No theology there; just good and evil, right and wrong.

That’s what a government is supposed to be; in the words of Jefferson, Adams, Franklin, et al., “that to secure these (unalienable human) rights, governments are instituted among men…”

Simple stuff, directly from Romans 13, circa 60-70 AD, to a certain declaration, published 4 July 1776.

Note that Jefferson et al. said “governments”, plural, not “a government”, singular. Strikingly similar to Franklin Delano Roosevelt’s phrase, “everywhere in the world”, dontcha think?

trevorw2539 wrote:
… and any opposition is against God.

Not if one is opposing usurpers.

trevorw2539 wrote:
Of course we know it isn't literal.

I take it literally, but I also exposit it exactly. Uncle Adolf et al. have no claim to authority through this document.

by **Ivan** Sat Mar 24, 2012 7:07 pm

Not God’s Word, so outside of curiosity, I’ve no real interest.

This thread is supposed to be about human rights, not religion. Many members of this forum are atheists and have "no real interest" in what anyone perceives as "God's Word" from some dubious and contradictory texts dating from the Bronze Age or earlier. Those texts were written in an age when slavery was an accepted practice, so if we're going to discuss the modern concept of human rights it might be useful to quote from some more contemporary sources.

by ROB Sat Mar 24, 2012 8:50 pm

Ivan wrote:

Not God’s Word, so outside of curiosity, I’ve no real interest.
This thread is supposed to be about human rights, not religion.

As the thread initiator, I’m well aware of that fact. God’s Word is not about religion; in fact God’s Word precedes all religions.

God’s Word includes teachings about unalienable human rights (not just “human rights”, but “unalienable human rights”), and thus God’s Word is an inherent part of this thread’s topic. Romans 13 is but one portion in which God’s Word teaches about governmental authority and its responsibility to be a force for good rather than a force for evil.

Ivan wrote:
Many members of this forum are atheists…

“That to secure these (Creator-endowed unalienable human) rights (unto all men, including atheists), governments are instituted among men…”

If one happens to be an atheist, one’s Creator-endowed unalienable human rights are to be secured by governments instituted among men. In other words, governments are supposed to ensure “liberty and justice for all”, including atheists. Doesn’t matter what your religion or non-religion might be; “all” means “all.” Period.

Ivan wrote:

… and have "no real interest" in what anyone perceives as "God's Word"…

Insofar as securing your Creator-endowed unalienable human rights are concerned, taking Curtis Mayfield’s phrase, “Don’t mater none Black or White”, I say to you “Don’t mater none atheist or theist”, your unalienable human rights are to be ensured by any government instituted among men.

Now if the government is instituted among something other than men, all bets are off.

Ivan wrote:
… from some dubious and contradictory texts…

Since I don’t pay attention to “dubious and contradictory texts”, I can’t comment upon what might or might not be in those texts.

Ivan wrote:
Those texts were written in an age when slavery was an accepted practice…

God’s Word inspired 19th Century abolitionists in the United States of America to oppose slavery with all their minds, harts, souls, and strength.

In your United Kingdom, God’s Word inspired William Wilberforce to oppose slave trade and slavery itself (click here), from the pulpit and the floor of the House of Commons, from the latter part of the 18th Century until finally the UK abolished slave trade circa 1800 and slavery itself circa 1833.

In the 1950’s, 1960’s, and 1970’s, God’s Word inspire countless noble souls to oppose the Son of Slavery, Jim Crow, the evil beast that God’s Word inspired me to help bury (I was a “pallbearer”) in Wilmington, Delaware, in the a8tumn months of 1967.

One of those so inspired was a fellow called Martin Luther King, Jr. Perhaps you’ve heard of him? Dion, who wrote this song, heard about him, along with two brothers named John and Robert, and a fellow named Abraham, whose words, “that this nation, under God, shall have a new birth of freedom, and that government of the people, by the people, for the people, shall not perish from the earth” spoken in 1863, inspired a nation to ratify the 13th, 14th, and 15th Amendments to the Constitution of the United States of America.

Ivan wrote:
… so if we're going to discuss the modern concept of human rights it might be useful to quote from some more contemporary sources.

In addition to Romans 13, absolutely.

In exclusion of Romans 13, not so much, since Roams 13 traces forward to Magna Carta, the Petition of Rights, the English Bill of Rights (I never remember which came first), John Locke’s Second Treatise of Civil Government 1690, the Declaration of Independence of the united States of America 1776 (lowercase “u” intentional), the Constitution of the United States of America circa 1791, the Acts of Parliament abolishing slave trade circa 1800 (in, effect, worldwide slave trade) and slavery itself circa 1833, the remarks at Gettysburg in 1863 that “the world will little note nor long remember”, the 13th, 14th, 15th, and 19th Amendments to the United States Constitution, the landmark 1954 Brown vs. Board of Education United States Supreme Court decision, the United States Congress Civil Rights Act of 1964 an Voting Rights Act of 1965 (listen to J.L. Chestnut speak of the Voting Rights Act), and straight into 20 January 2009, when for the first time in its two hundred twenty something year history as a republic under its current constitution, the United States of America inaugurated a man of African heritage, Barack Hussein Obama Jr., as President of the Unit4ed States of America.

And along the way, the Universal Declaration of Human Rights 1948 (click here to read) and the beloved by me Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms 1982 (click here to read), which includes these words, “Whereas Canada is founded upon principles that recognize the supremacy of God and the rule of law”, as it begins.

“All things work together for good for those who love the Lord.”

by trevorw2539 Sat Mar 24, 2012 9:23 pm

by Ivan Today at 7:07 pm

Not God’s Word, so outside of curiosity, I’ve no real interest.

This thread is supposed to be about human rights, not religion. Many members of this forum are atheists and have "no real interest" in what anyone perceives as "God's Word" from some dubious and contradictory texts dating from the Bronze Age or earlier. Those texts were written in an age when slavery was an accepted practice, so if we're going to discuss the modern concept of human rights it might be useful to quote from some more contemporary sources.

Noted. I can understand. I get bored when people go on about things I'm not interested in.

I would just point out that Human rights of 2000BC were just as relevant to them and their situation, though we may not understand, as the Declaration of Human Rights is to us.

by ROB Sat Mar 24, 2012 9:48 pm

trevorw2539 wrote:
… Human rights of 2000BC were just as relevant to them and their situation, though we may not understand, as the Declaration of Human Rights is to us.

I agree without reservation.

by oftenwrong Sat Mar 24, 2012 10:10 pm

Human Rights seem to have become subordinated to the right to bear arms, in Texas.

by **astradt1** Sat Mar 24, 2012 10:32 pm

This thread seems to have evolved into the originators two favourite subjects..

The constitution of the united states of america....

The bible.......

It has become a vehicle for post on these two subjects only......

by trevorw2539 Sat Mar 24, 2012 10:41 pm

Astrad1.

See my previous post. Oh and give me some credit. I did head off into Roosevelts Four Freedoms speech at one stage. silent

by ROB Sun Mar 25, 2012 12:08 am

oftenwrong wrote:
Human Rights seem to have become subordinated to the right to bear arms, in Texas.

The right to bear arms is an inherent component of securing inherent unalienable human rights to all men, gender inclusive.

De-arm We the People, arm the minions of evil, and behold Nazism, Fascism, Idi-ism, etc.

by ROB Sun Mar 25, 2012 12:42 am

astradt1 wrote:
This thread seems to have evolved into the originators two favourite subjects..

The constitution of the united states of america....

The bible.......

… and…

24 March 2012, 20:50, RockOnBrother wrote:

… William Wilberforce…

… Martin Luther King, Jr…

… John (Fitzgerald Kennedy)…

… Robert (Francis Kennedy)…

… Abraham (Lincoln)…

… the 13th… Amendment to the Constitution of the United States of America…

… the… 14th… Amendment to the Constitution of the United States of America…

The…15th Amendments to the Constitution of the United States of America..

… Magna Carta…

… the Petition of Rights…

… the English Bill of Rights…

… John Locke’s Second Treatise of Civil Government 1690…

… the Declaration of Independence of the united States of America 1776…

… the Constitution of the United States of America circa 1791 (already mentioned by the author of the post to which I’m responding)…

, the Acts of Parliament abolishing slave trade circa 1800 (in, effect, worldwide slave trade) and slavery itself circa 1833,

… the remarks at Gettysburg in 1863 that “the world will little note nor long remember”…

… the 13th, 14th, 15th, and 19th Amendments to the United States Constitution (already mentioned, but worth remembering again)…

… the landmark 1954 Brown vs. Board of Education United States Supreme Court decision…

… the United States Congress Civil Rights Act of 1964…

… the United States Congress… Voting Rights Act of 1965…

… J.L. Chestnut…

… 20 January 2009, when for the first time in its two hundred twenty something year history as a republic under its current constitution, the United States of America inaugurated a man of African heritage, Barack Hussein Obama Jr., as President of the Unit4ed States of America…

… the Universal Declaration of Human Rights 1948…

… the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms 1982 which includes these words, “Whereas Canada is founded upon principles that recognize the supremacy of God and the rule of law”…

… and anything and anyone else, from anywhere on earth, from the beginning of recorded history until right now, that pertains to securing unalienable human rights unto all mankind, “everywhere in the world.”,

by ROB Mon Mar 26, 2012 7:24 am

Topic: Unalienable Human Right to Freedom/Liberty

Questions:

Is freedom/liberty an unalienable human right? (Yes – No - Not sure)
If freedom/liberty is an unalienable human right, is it an unalienable human right throughout the inhabited word? (Yes – No - Not sure)
If freedom/liberty is an unalienable human right, do people who enjoy this right have an obligation to do everything they can do to spread freedom/liberty to people who do not enjoy this right? (Yes – No - Not sure)
If freedom/liberty is not an unalienable human right, what is it?
If freedom/liberty is not an unalienable human right, do governments have the right to grant freedom/liberty to some and deny freedom/liberty to others? (Yes – No - Not sure)

Food for thought:

Slave Trade Act 1807
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The Slave Trade Act (citation 47 Geo III Sess. 1 c. 36) was an Act of Parliament of the United Kingdom passed on 25 March 1807, with the long title "An Act for the Abolition of the Slave Trade". The act abolished the slave trade in the British Empire, but not slavery itself; slavery on English soil was unsupported in English law and that position was confirmed in Somersett's Case in 1772, but it remained legal in most of the British Empire until the Slavery Abolition Act 1833.

Britain used its international strength to put pressure on other nations to end their own slave trade. The United States acted to abolish its Atlantic slave trade the same year… In 1805 a British Order-in-Council had restricted the importation of slaves into colonies that had been captured from France and the Netherlands. Britain continued to press other nations to end their trade with a series of treaties: the 1810 Anglo-Portuguese treaty whereby Portugal agreed to restrict its trade… the 1813 Anglo-Swedish treaty whereby Sweden outlawed its slave trade; the… Treaty of Paris 1814 whereby France agreed with Britain that the slave trade was "repugnant to the principles of natural justice" and agreed to abolish the slave trade in five years; the 1814 Anglo-Dutch treaty whereby the Netherlands outlawed its slave trade; and the 1817 Anglo-Spanish treaty whereby Spain agreed to suppress its trade by 1820.

The Royal Navy, which then controlled the world's seas, established the West Africa Squadron in 1808 to patrol the coast of West Africa, and between 1808 and 1860 they seized approximately 1,600 slave ships and freed 150,000 Africans who were aboard. The Royal Navy declared that ships transporting slaves were the same as pirates. Action was also taken against African leaders who refused to agree to British treaties to outlaw the trade, for example against "the usurping King of Lagos", deposed in 1851. Anti-slavery treaties were signed with over 50 African rulers.

In the 1860s, David Livingstone's reports of atrocities within the Arab slave trade in Africa stirred up the interest of the British public, reviving the flagging abolitionist movement. The Royal Navy throughout the 1870s attempted to suppress "this abominable Eastern trade", at Zanzibar in particular. In 1890 Britain handed control of the strategically important island of Heligoland in the North Sea to Germany in return for control of Zanzibar, in part to help enforce the ban on slave trading.

Retrieved 26 March 2012 from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Slave_Trade_Act_1807#Other_nations
__________________________________________________________________________________________

Creative Commons Deed (Wikipedia)

You are free:

● to Share—to copy, distribute and transmit the work, and
● to Remix—to adapt the work

Under the following conditions:

● Attribution—You must attribute the work in the manner specified by the author or licensor (but not in any way that suggests that they endorse you or your use of the work.)
● Share Alike—If you alter, transform, or build upon this work, you may distribute the resulting work only under the same, similar or a compatible license.

Retrieved 2 August 2011 from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Text_of_Creative_Commons_Attribution-ShareAlike_3.0_Unported_License
__________________________________________________________________________________________

Act Against Slavery
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The Act Against Slavery was an anti-slavery law passed on July 9, 1793, in the first legislative session of Upper Canada, the colonial division of British North America that would eventually become Ontario.

John Graves Simcoe, Lieutenant Governor of the colony, had been a supporter of abolition before coming to Upper Canada; as a British Member of Parliament, he had described slavery as an offence against Christianity. At the time, Upper Canada had about three hundred slaves.

At the inaugural meeting of the Executive Council of Upper Canada in March 1793, Simcoe heard from a witness the story of Chloe Cooley, a female slave who had been violently removed from Canada for sale in the United States. Simcoe's desire to abolish slavery in Upper Canada was resisted by members of the Legislative Assembly who owned slaves, and therefore the resulting act was a compromise. Of the sixteen members of the assembly, at least six owned slaves.

The law, titled An Act to Prevent the further Introduction of Slaves and to limit the Term of Contracts for Servitude within this Province, stated that while all slaves in the province would remain enslaved until death, no new slaves could be brought into Upper Canada, and children born to female slaves after passage of the act would be freed at age 25.

This law made Upper Canada "the first British colony to abolish slavery." The Act remained in force until 1833 when the British Parliament's Slavery Abolition Act abolished slavery in most parts of the British Empire.

Retrieved 26 March 2012 from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Act_Against_Slavery
__________________________________________________________________________________________

Creative Commons Deed (Wikipedia)

You are free:

● to Share—to copy, distribute and transmit the work, and
● to Remix—to adapt the work

Under the following conditions:

● Attribution—You must attribute the work in the manner specified by the author or licensor (but not in any way that suggests that they endorse you or your use of the work.)
● Share Alike—If you alter, transform, or build upon this work, you may distribute the resulting work only under the same, similar or a compatible license.

Retrieved 2 August 2011 from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Text_of_Creative_Commons_Attribution-ShareAlike_3.0_Unported_License
__________________________________________________________________________________________

Slavery Abolition Act 1833
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The Slavery Abolition Act 1833 (citation 3 & 4 Will. IV c. 73) was an 1833 Act of the Parliament of the United Kingdom abolishing slavery throughout the British Empire (with the exceptions "of the Territories in the Possession of the East India Company," the "Island of Ceylon," and "the Island of Saint Helena", which were later repealed). The Act was repealed in 1998 as part of a wider rationalisation of English statute law, but later anti-slavery legislation remains in force.

In 1772, Lord Mansfield's judgment in the Somersett's Case emancipated a slave in England, which helped launch the movement to abolish slavery… slavery was unsupported by law in England and Scotland and no authority could be exercised on slaves entering English or Scottish soil…

… In 1785, English poet William Cowper wrote: “We have no slaves at home - Then why abroad? Slaves cannot breathe in England; if their lungs receive our air, that moment they are free. They touch our country, and their shackles fall. That's noble, and bespeaks a nation proud. And jealous of the blessing. Spread it then, And let it circulate through every vein.”

By 1807, Britain had outlawed the slave trade with the Slave Trade Act, with penalties of £100 per slave levied on British captains found importing slaves (treaties signed with other nations expanded the scope of the trading ban). Small trading nations that did not have a great deal to give up, such as Sweden, quickly followed suit, as did the Netherlands, also by then a minor player; however, the British Empire on its own constituted a substantial fraction of the world's population. The Royal Navy established the West Africa Squadron (or Preventive Squadron) at substantial expense in 1808 after Parliament passed the Act. The squadron's task was to suppress the Atlantic slave trade by patrolling the coast of West Africa. It did suppress the slave trade, but did not stop it entirely… Between 1808 and 1860 the West Africa Squadron captured 1,600 slave ships and freed 150,000 Africans.

During the Christmas holiday of 1831, a large-scale slave revolt in Jamaica known as the Baptist War broke out. It was organised originally as a peaceful strike by Baptist minister Samuel Sharpe. The rebellion was suppressed by the militia of the Jamaican plantocracy and the British garrison ten days later in early 1832. Because of the loss of property and life in the 1831 rebellion, the British Parliament held two inquiries. The results of these inquiries contributed greatly to the abolition of slavery with the Slavery Abolition Act 1833.

A successor organisation to the Anti-Slavery Society was formed in London in 1839, which worked to outlaw slavery in other countries. Its official name was the British and Foreign Anti-Slavery Society. The world's oldest international human rights organisation, it continues today as Anti-Slavery International.

Retrieved 26 March 2012 from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Slavery_Abolition_Act_1833
__________________________________________________________________________________________

Creative Commons Deed (Wikipedia)

You are free:

● to Share—to copy, distribute and transmit the work, and
● to Remix—to adapt the work

Under the following conditions:

● Attribution—You must attribute the work in the manner specified by the author or licensor (but not in any way that suggests that they endorse you or your use of the work.)
● Share Alike—If you alter, transform, or build upon this work, you may distribute the resulting work only under the same, similar or a compatible license.

Retrieved 2 August 2011 from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Text_of_Creative_Commons_Attribution-ShareAlike_3.0_Unported_License
__________________________________________________________________________________________

It is of profound personal interest that the Royal Navy forced slave traders caught on the high seas by the Royal Navy West African Squadron to recognize the unalienable right to freedom/liberty of captured Africans.

And my friends in America wonder why I salute “The Andrew” at every possible opportunity!

Relevant documents and speeches (portions):

IN CONGRESS, JULY 4, 1776
The unanimous Declaration of the thirteen united States of America

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… Liberty… That to secure these rights (including liberty), Governments are instituted among Men…
The Gettysburg Address
Abraham Lincoln, Gettysburg, Pennsylvania, 19 November 1863

It is rather for us to be here dedicated to the great task remaining before us -- that from these honored dead we take increased devotion to that cause for which they gave the last full measure of devotion - that we here highly resolve that these dead shall not have died in vain - that this nation, under God, shall have a new birth of freedom…
The United States Constitution, Amendment 13
Ratified 6 December 1865

1. Neither slavery nor involuntary servitude, except as a punishment for crime whereof the party shall have been duly convicted, shall exist within the United States, or any place subject to their jurisdiction.

2. Congress shall have power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation.
Universal Declaration of Human Rights
United Nations General Assembly, resolution 217 A (III), 10 December 1948

Article 3. Everyone has the right to life, liberty and security of person.

Article 4. No one shall be held in slavery or servitude; slavery and the slave trade shall be prohibited in all their forms.

Copyright © United Nations 2012. Retrieved 26 March 2012 from http://www.un.org/en/documents/udhr/
__________________________________________________________________________________________

Terms and Conditions of Use of United Nations Web Sites

The use of this web site constitutes agreement with the following terms and conditions:

(a) The United Nations maintains this web site (the “Site”) as a courtesy to those who may choose to access the Site (“Users”). The information presented herein is for informative purposes only. The United Nations grants permission to Users to visit the Site and to download and copy the information, documents and materials (collectively, “Materials”) from the Site for the User’s personal, non-commercial use, without any right to resell or redistribute them or to compile or create derivative works therefrom, subject to the terms and conditions outlined below, and also subject to more specific restrictions that may apply to specific Material within this Site.

Retrieved 26 March 2012 from http://www.un.org/en/aboutun/terms/
__________________________________________________________________________________________
Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms

PART I OF THE CONSTITUTION ACT, 1982

7. Everyone has the right to life, liberty and security of the person and the right not to be deprived thereof except in accordance with the principles of fundamental justice.

Retrieved 26 March 2012 from http://laws.justice.gc.ca/eng/Charter/page-1.html

by trevorw2539 Mon Mar 26, 2012 9:51 am

There were deep-seated intellectual anti-slavery criticisms in French and Scottish Enlightenment writing. But British abolition had more immediate origins. First of all were the English slave cases; that string of court cases which focussed on the legality of slavery in England itself. From the 1760s onwards this legal challenge had, in Granville Sharp, a resolute campaigner determined to prove the illegality of slavery in England, and to prevent the removal of Africans back to the slave colonies against their will. The culmination of his campaign was Lord Mansfield's decision in the Somerset case of 1772 which, though taking a narrow legal focus (that blacks could not legally be removed from England) had the effect of undermining slavery in England. Sharpe, personal friend to distressed Africans, and tireless campaigner on their behalf, was the first real English hero of abolition

From http://www.history.ac.uk/ihr/Focus/Slavery/articles/walvin.html

Not disagreeing RoC. Just another view and interesting article

by Sponsored content