|
|
Post by AmericanPride on Dec 6, 2007 8:55:59 GMT -8
So the laws of abstract and artificial states usurp the natural rights of men that have been "endowed by their Creator"? Would you also further state that the authority of men therefore take precedence over the authority of God? If not, then how do you settle the contradiction that natural rights, granted by God, are subject to the restrictions imposed by fallible men?
|
|
|
|
Post by 101ABN on Dec 6, 2007 20:57:46 GMT -8
In your mind the United States of America is an abstract and artificial state?
Shame on you.
"Would you also further state that the authority of men therefore take precedence over the authority of God?"
God's authority does not grant the right for people to violate soverign borders.
"If not, then how do you settle the contradiction that natural rights, granted by God, are subject to the restrictions imposed by fallible men? "
Matthew 22:21
matthew 22:21
|
|
|
|
Post by AmericanPride on Dec 6, 2007 21:15:23 GMT -8
Render unto Caesar, that which is Caesar's and unto God that which is God's.
Would you therefore argue that natural rights are creation of men, not God, and thus also artificial? If natural rights are not God's own, then who's are they?
But it does grant them the inalienable right to ignore, usurp, or otherwise discard unjust laws. Do you not agree?
|
|
|
|
Post by 101ABN on Dec 6, 2007 21:51:13 GMT -8
"Would you therefore argue that natural rights are creation of men, not God, and thus also artificial? If natural rights are not God's own, then who's are they? "
"But it does grant them the inalienable right to ignore, usurp, or otherwise discard unjust laws. Do you not agree? "
Who is the arbiter of whether or not a law is just or unjust?
Would you care to give just one example of a "natural right" as it exists in nature?
|
|
|
|
Post by AmericanPride on Dec 6, 2007 22:18:46 GMT -8
God made man from the beginning, and left him in the hand of his own counsel.
Ecclesiasticus 15: 14
Man, created in the image of God and empowered with reason, determines for himself which laws are just and which laws are unjust. Natural Law is the measurement by which men assess the validity of government law, as it is, so-to-speak, the "law" of God and is the perfection of human reason. Thus, the laws of governments are measured against their conformity with Natural Law,. Therefore, laws that "violate" Natural Law are essentially not laws at all, and no man is under any obligation to obey them.
Natural "rights" do not exist in physical nature, hence the necessity of God in the formulation of any moral system that asserts the inherent rights and freedoms of Men. Everything in nature is subject to the whim of whomever exercises the most power over others. But this is in direct contradiction that all Men are created in the image of God and therefore equal before Him. If all men are equal before God, they are also equal among one another. This equality forms the basis of natural rights regardless of the conditions of "nature".
|
|
|
|
Post by 101ABN on Dec 7, 2007 7:32:41 GMT -8
"Man, created in the image of God and empowered with reason, determines for himself which laws are just and which laws are unjust."
Man individually? Or man collectively?
"Natural "rights" do not exist in physical nature"
Thank you. We can now dispense with any further discussion of natural rights.
Now look back and see how many words you wasted to get to this simple truth.
|
|
|
|
Post by AmericanPride on Dec 7, 2007 7:50:22 GMT -8
No -- we can't. Obviously you failed to read the rest and to understand the implications that "dispensing" with natural rights has. But if you want to forgo human rights and cast your lot with every killer, dictator, and rapist in history, I suppose you have the choice to believe that.
|
|
|
|
Post by 101ABN on Dec 7, 2007 8:30:41 GMT -8
Oh yes, I read the rest and when I stopped laughing I wrote my reply.
Why? Because the rest is pure doublespeak.
You'll make a fine socialist.
|
|
|
|
Post by AmericanPride on Dec 7, 2007 8:42:09 GMT -8
Since when did socialism establish belief in the divinity, liberty, equality, and natural rights of men upon God? The ideas I am talking about have been in existence long before socialism. But if natural rights, God, and liberty are things you want to laugh at, you also have that right.
|
|
|
|
Post by 101ABN on Dec 7, 2007 8:50:46 GMT -8
"But if natural rights, God, and liberty are things you want to laugh at, you also have that right. "
Too ludicrous for further comment.
|
|
|
|
Post by peterd on Dec 15, 2007 5:35:13 GMT -8
Illegal immigration has nothing to do with hate, racism, etc. This is simple, Illegal immigration is a crime. Crime comes in many different colors, nationalities, etc. Look at that this way. If thief in dirty cloth comes to your house in the middle of the night, would you tell him to stay because he looks poor. Logical answer is no. However inability of federal, state, and local government to deal with the immigration problem, is creating hate toward the illegal immigrants. The problems are not as much the illegals, but our own politicians who would sell their own mother just to get elected to the office.
The illegal issue could get much worse, We already saw that many illegal immigrants committed a crime and did not pay for it. This could create radical approach by an individuals or groups and we may see attacks against the illegals. If the first bomb explodes in the U.S., well Lord help us all. Vigilanties will be on the rise.
|
|
|
|
Post by AmericanPride on Dec 26, 2007 8:04:26 GMT -8
Oh stop with the scare-tactics about bombs, vigilantes, and the end of America as we know it. America's immigration policy has everything to do with race and the sensitivity of America's (largely white) middle class. Ideas about race have driven and shaped immigration law in this country since the beginning. But what has happened is that the opportunities provided by the prosperity of globalization have usurped those fragile identities of middle-class white Americans. People come to this country to succeed. X amount come over year. Y amount is what we accept by pre-established quotas. The difference is the number of illegals in the country. What happens when we exclude people from society? They become culturally alienated -- they obviously will not assimilate into a country that rejects them out of hand; and so reinforce their own identities. They become unaccountable -- by not entering "the system", so-to-speak, they leave no paper trail for law enforcement and the IRS. And since they're not beholden to labor laws, there's even more downward pressure wages than had they been welcomed in the first place. What immigration policy has done is create an underclass that we know nothing about, can do nothing with, and share no common identity. And all for what? To preserve some idealistic Anglo-Protestant identity.
You're right -- the problem isn't "illegal" immigrants. Nobody, especially in America, ought to criticize a man for making something of himself. The problem is a faulty, unproductive policy that alienates, rather than enfranchises, an entire segment of society.
|
|
|
|
Post by peterd on Dec 26, 2007 10:57:29 GMT -8
American Pride, you don't have believe me. Just listen to people and open your eyes and mind. The potential for bombs exploding and vigilanties taking actions are here. America has changed drastically since 60's. We become PC (politically correct) state. Now we have etreme left and right elements who are trying to divide views and opinions of the nation. Our media is not helping. Hate against the illegal immigrants is growing.
Illegal immigration is not about preserving Anglo-Protestant identity, its the question of legality. If you comitt a crime, in most cases you will be punished. Crossing illegally our borders is a crime. Check the law. People are more likely accept legal immigrants because they did not committ a crime against this country. Honestly, I don't want my taxes to support illegal immigration. Why should I pay for their schools, medical, etc.? Give me a very good and compeling reason. Lets look at the reality of medical problems. How many of the illegal immigrants who came to this country were innoculated against illnesses which were eradicated in the U.S. At the same time please provide statistic on tuberculosis, polio, typhus, etc, prior the this problem and now. Go back 20 to 50 years.
There is nothing wrong for legal immigrant to make something out of him/herself. In all fairness who has more right to be here legal or illegal immigrant. Look it your past family history. I am sure that your past family worked very hard and earn their way and they deserve high respect.
|
|
|
|
Post by AmericanPride on Dec 26, 2007 12:35:42 GMT -8
That's the thing -- there's no difference between legal and illegal immigrants. Both come here to work, and both work hard. What creates the difference is a misguided and outdated policy that has been shaped by white America's racial identity. I cited some of the sources from the lawmakers themselves in this thread. America is not a land of vigilantism. It's a land of not only law -- but just law. It's apparent from the consequences of our immigration policy that it is neither just for immigrants or Americans.
You asked about disease. You question should be: how many illegal immigrants would be inoculated against disease if they were not institutionally excluded? Our immigration policies HURT Americans as much as it hurts illegal immigrants. If you exclude them from the system, how can you reasonably expect any kind of accountability? In law enforcement? In medicine? In education and social services? You can't! The obvious solution is to abolish immigration quotas in order to erase the institutional mechanisms that create the artificial class of "illegals". By enfranchising all immigrants, the perceived problems related to illegal immigration (crime, taxes, disease, culture and language, etc) will disappear overnight. It's a strategy of co-opting -- not one of alienating. It's how you build credibility, generate loyalty and trust, and diffuse tension and the origins of conflict (and vigilantism).
But, tell me, why don't Americans want more people? Why don't they want to encourage more immigration? Why do they say "America is full"?
|
|
|
|
Post by 101ABN on Dec 26, 2007 13:10:02 GMT -8
"It's apparent from the consequences of our immigration policy that it is neither just for immigrants or Americans."
The only thing that's apparent is that failure to enforce the law results in chaos.
"Our immigration policies HURT Americans as much as it hurts illegal immigrants."
Pure BS
Using your logic, abolishing criminal codes would eliminate crime.
"Illegal" isn't an "artificial class" any more than the US is an "artificial' soveregn nation.
"white America's racial identity?"
You're sounding more like a marxist all the time.
|
|
