Human Rights and God go hand in hand according to Glenn Beck

I was watching the news last night and they had a segment where Glenn
Beck talks about how there must be a God, otherwise where do we get our
inalienable rights...that really bugged me...for one because I
would not have known how to answer that and two the more that I thought about it the more I felt like we don't need God to have rights...So those who believe in Buddha they don't get human rights? Or they get less rights?

I think we are all humans, self aware, we feel pain and can empathize with others even animals.  We deserve to be treated humanely because we are...self aware, and we can understand others pain.  We deserve rights because no one else's rights should be above my own not even the government's...

What do you all think?

Views: 427

Reply to This

Replies to This Discussion

God and human right go together alright, but it's more like foot-in-mouth than hand in hand
"Slay them all - God knows His own!" LOL

Glen Beck is a blithering idiot.

Well, first, "Where do we get out inalienable rights"? What inalienable rights? The argument is that society would not have advanced the "values" or "morals" it did (supposedly) unless it had been buttresses by religion, specifically Christian religion. It is a species of only religious people (Christian) can be or have morals. Reference Sam Harris here and his arguments for the "elevated" nature of the morality of the Bible (he's "agin" it, BTW), and the possibility of having morals and values without God. Further his argument that most of the social advances we have experienced have NOT been due to the forward thinking, humane minded Church or Christianity but rather secular humanists or deist who have often fought AGAINST the Church to change the values and morals that were prevalent at the time. The Church has been forced by these advances to reinterpret or hedge what they have taught so was to appear to have less of an "Iron Age" mentality than the Bible actually fosters.


Most Christians choose the morality of the Bible selectively, or hid part of the morality of the Bible and advance the parts that are somewhat palatable. They ignore the inconsistencies in the morality and the inconsistencies between the actions of the deity (Yahweh and Jesus) and the moral dictates.


The assumption is that people are inherently disposed to "evil" not good. That is a presupposition of the Christian religion. The presupposition is that people unaided by authoritative dictates and the intimidation of punishment will not of their own accord arising out of their own nature do what is beneficial for themselves and others with whom they are in community.


The argument presupposes something which arises out of what it is alleging to prove, that there is a God. It is also a scare tactic that if you personally abandon belief in God and others follow society will descend into chaos, anarchy and brutal self absorption and self interest.


All one needs to do is look to the "human rights" accorded to people by the Church during the inquisition and the crusades or the Islamic leaders of Islamic nations with their sharia law. Religion has never accorded people human rights. Religion accords you NO rights. The only one with rights is God. The inalienable rights he mentions were accorded by people by the "Founding Fathers" precious few of whom were Christians. Jefferson, Adams and Thomas Paine were certainly not Christians but rather, at best, Deist regardless of what the Christian Right wants people to think. They along with Madison were the most prominent framers of the Constitution.


If anything they were humanists. If anything the Constitution is a social contract.

James Madison, the father of the Constitution:


What influence, in fact, have ecclesiastical establishments had on society? In some instances they have been seen to erect a spiritual tyranny on the ruins of the civil authority; on many instances they have been seen upholding the thrones of political tyranny; in no instance have they been the guardians of the liberties of the people. Rulers who wish to subvert the public liberty may have found an established clergy convenient auxiliaries. A just government, instituted to secure and perpetuate it, needs them not. [Pres. James Madison, A Memorial and Remonstrance, addressed to the General Assembly of the Commonwealth of Virginia, 1785]


Religious bondage shackles and debilitates the mind and unfits it for every noble enterprize, every expanded prospect.
-- James Madison, letter to William Bradford, Jr., April 1, 1774, quoted from Edwin S Gaustad, Faith of Our Fathers: Religion and the New Nation (1987) p. 37, quoted from Ed and Michael Buckner, "Quotations that Support the Separation of State and Church"



The bible doesn't get thru its very first item, the creation myth, w/o contradicting itself. Thereafter and thruout the bible is so filled w,contradictions that it is relatively easy to cherry pick from it, in order to find justification for any position imaginable. Just one example is how both sides in Americas Civil War were certaint dog had justified their position.

Something else that comes to mind is a huge but nonfunctioning clock that loudly broadcasts the time, but is correct only twice a day.

As such, I donot find it at all hard to believe that Glen Beck has found justification for his beliefs in the bible.

I am reminded of Francis Collins at that mentioning of how this is seen as roof of dogs existence as he sees divine intervention as the only possible explanation for human morality. For me anyway, this position is best, or at least very well, refuted by Andy Thomson on this talk by him.


© 2019   Atheist Nexus. All rights reserved. Admin: The Nexus Group.   Powered by

Badges  |  Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service