Conservative vs Liberal

[37818]

Exactly. It is not inalienable.

Why?

It can be surrendered. It can be taken.

It is not immutable. It cannot be transferred. How is that not inalienable?

We live by the grace of God, not by human right.

The argument of life being an inalienable "right" is it is from God, not of from human government. It is not immutable, but inalienable, it is not transferable right.

 

[JonC]

Why?

It is not immutable. It cannot be transferred. How is that not inalienable?

The argument of life being an inalienable "right" is it is from God, not of from human government. It is not immutable, but inalienable, it is not transferable right.

Inalienable does not mean "non-transferable". It means it cannot be transfered, surrendered or taken.

An inalienable right is a right that cannot be alienated.

But Scriptute says that the murderer dies.

The passage you provided disproves your claim in two ways -

1. The prohibition against murder is based on God (on God's image) not on a human right.

2. The murderer is to be alienated from his life.

There is no way around this. You were mistaken.

But if you consider the DOI to be strictly in context of government interaction with the governed then you have a human right based on restriction (the intent of the founding fathers).

Men do not have the right to take another's life. In the context of the DOI, then, our lives are protected as a right because it restricts the other.

The Constitution does not exist to give rights but to restrict government.

 

[37818]

Inalienable does not mean "non-transferable". It means it cannot be transfered, surrendered or taken.

Huh? It is the same. Non-transferable means cannot be transfered. Taken in the sense of acquired.

 

[JonC]

Huh? It is the same. Non-transferable means cannot be transfered.

Non-transferable means it cannot be transfered.

And inalienable INCLUDES that it cannot be transferred.

But inalienable means it cannot be alienated from the person. It can't be transferred, taken away, surrendered, etc.

 

[JonC]

The main point regarded the unbiblical notion that capital punishment for murder is hypocrisy. Scripture is clear on this.

God holds man responsible to carry out capital punishment for murder. No "mark of Cain." Capital punishment. God made it clear all the way back to our common ancestor Noah.

Look at it this way-

If you have a right to life and commit murder, and your life is justly taken from you, then your right to life was not (by definition) inalienable because it was justly alienated from you.

 

[37818]

Non-transferable means it cannot be transfered.

And inalienable INCLUDES that it cannot be transferred.

But inalienable means it cannot be alienated from the person. It can't be transferred, taken away, surrendered, etc.

Taken and gone. Not immutable.
inalienable definition at DuckDuckGo

 

[JonC]

Taken and gone. Not immutable.
inalienable definition at DuckDuckGo

Immutable means "not mutable". If something is immutable then that thing cannot be mutable.

Inalienable means "not alienable". It cannot be alienated from a person (it cannot be taken, transferred, or surrendered).

Non-transferable means something cannot be transferred.

Inalienable rights are non-transferable. They cannot be transferred. They also cannot be taken (the point of the Declaration of Independence). And they cannot be surrendered.


That said, please explain why the founding fathers felt it necessary to say we have a NON-TRANSFERABLE right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness among other NON-TRANSFERABLE rights.

You are backing yourself into an indefensible (not able to be defended) position.

 

[37818]

Immutable means "not mutable". If something is immutable then that thing cannot be mutable.

Yes. Inalienable but mutable.

Non-transferable means something cannot be transferred.

Inalienable rights are non-transferable. They cannot be transferred. They also cannot be taken (the point of the Declaration of Independence). And they cannot be surrendered.


That said, please explain why the founding fathers felt it necessary to say we have a NON-TRANSFERABLE right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness among other NON-TRANSFERABLE rights.

At this point I do not know.

You are backing yourself into an indefensible (not able to be defended) position.

I qualified what I understand inalienable means. Property, such as money or land cannot be deemed inalienable.
inalienability

 

[JonC]

Yes. Inalienable but mutable.

At this point I do not know.

I qualified what I understand inalienable means. Property, such as money or land cannot be deemed inalienable.

To keep it simple, let's just look at the three named in the DOI (the DOI mentions there are more, but among them are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness).

Let's look at liberty.

The DOI calls liberty an inalienable right.

Now, you suggested this could mean "non-transferable" (the founding fathers were concerned that the government would try to transfer our liberty to another). This does not make since because "all men" already have it (per the DOI).

So "non-transferable" does not work.

I suggest that the founding fathers were concerned about a government taking away human rights. Their case is that we - being human - have qualities innate to our beings that the government (or other people) have no right to take away.

But if we look at man individually, these "rights" are not inalienable. A man can be alienated from the right to liberty and the pursuit of happiness upon committing a crime. He could also be alienated from the right to life by killing another person.

The DOI was not making a theological statement, but instead was declaring independence from a government that exceeded its proper bounds.

 

[RighteousnessTemperance&]

Look at it this way-

If you have a right to life and commit murder, and your life is justly taken from you, then your right to life was not (by definition) inalienable because it was justly alienated from you.

How does that negate scripture where God instituted capital punishment? The word hypocrisy was used. Wrongly used.

Perhaps someone may think there must be some inconsistency in using the term inalienable, but there is no hypocrisy involved in it.

 

[37818]

To keep it simple, let's just look at the three named in the DOI (the DOI mentions there are more, but among them are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness).

Let's look at liberty.

The DOI calls liberty an inalienable right.

Now, you suggested this could mean "non-transferable" (the founding fathers were concerned that the government would try to transfer our liberty to another). This does not make since because "all men" already have it (per the DOI).

So "non-transferable" does not work.

I suggest that the founding fathers were concerned about a government taking away human rights. Their case is that we - being human - have qualities innate to our beings that the government (or other people) have no right to take away.

But if we look at man individually, these "rights" are not inalienable. A man can be alienated from the right to liberty and the pursuit of happiness upon committing a crime. He could also be alienated from the right to life by killing another person.

The DOI was not making a theological statement, but instead was declaring independence from a government that exceeded its proper bounds.

The argument is life, liberty, and being allowed to pursue happiness as being from God not human government. ". . . endowed by their Creator . . . ."

 

[37818]

UNalienable

"Unalienable" vs. "Inalienable": Is There A Difference?

Inalienable vs. unalienable

 

[RighteousnessTemperance&]

I am not saying capitol punishment is murder.

I am saying that capital punishment takes away what you refer to as an inalienable right given by God.

If you are correct that man has an inalienable right to life then capital punishment has to be wrong as it alienates man from that right.

My observation is that Scripture stands against the idea. Man shall not murder based on God - not inalienable human rights.

Capital punishment does not alienate one from the right to life. Murder may do that—for the murderer, by God’s judgment—but man’s judgment will not.

In fact, capital punishment wrongly applied would itself be murder, a violation of the person’s right to life. He may have lost his life, but not his right to it.

Violating someone’s God-given rights does not thereby alienate him from those rights.

Any alienation of rights is strictly God’s domain, something man can neither legislate, regulate nor judge. And neither the DOI nor COTUS attempts or even suggests otherwise.

 

[JonC]

How does that negate scripture where God instituted capital punishment? The word hypocrisy was used. Wrongly used.

Perhaps someone may think there must be some inconsistency in using the term inalienable, but there is no hypocrisy involved in it.

If life is an inalienable right posses by man then it is unjust to alienate that right from man.

The point of Scripture is that we do not have a right to lives. We exist by God's grace - not rights.

 

[JonC]

The argument is life, liberty, and being allowed to pursue happiness as being from God not human government. ". . . endowed by their Creator . . . ."

No. The argument is those things are self evident inalienable rights.

In the context of human events, I agree with the DOI (it constrains government). But theogically men are not endowed by God with the inalienable right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.

 

[37818]

No. The argument is those things are self evident inalienable rights.

Well, yes. Self evident truths. God Himself is the, not mentioned, self evident truth.

In the context of human events, I agree with the DOI (it constrains government). But theogically men are not endowed by God with the inalienable right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.

 

[RighteousnessTemperance&]

No. The argument is those things are self evident inalienable rights.

In the context of human events, I agree with the DOI (it constrains government). But theogically men are not endowed by God with the inalienable right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.

There can be no end to this disagreement as long as it is imagined that the DOI purports to govern God, to say what He can and cannot do regarding man’s life or anything man has.

That is beyond the purview of man, and beyond the idea of inalienable rights. It is an unreasonable interpretation of its intent and meaning.

 

[JonC]

There can be no end to this disagreement as long as it is imagined that the DOI purports to govern God, to say what He can and cannot do regarding man’s life or anything man has.

That is beyond the purview of man, and beyond the idea of inalienable rights. It is an unreasonable interpretation of its intent and meaning.

???

Who thinks the DOI seeks to govern God?

All I am saying is we exist not by human right but by God's grace.

 

[37818]

It is the self evident truth that people are alive. That fact of being alive establishs one's right to life to be self evident.

Liberty is a self evident right in order to be free to believe truth.

Happiness, it's need, established it's self evident right for it's pursuit.

 

[RighteousnessTemperance&]

???

Who thinks the DOI seeks to govern God?

All I am saying is we exist not by human right but by God's grace.

??? indeed.

Who thinks humans created their existence, gave themselves life?

Certainly not those behind the DOI. The idea of inalienable rights affirms God as the source of it all. It would be unfair and unreasonable to interpret the DOI in any other way.

God’s bestowal of life establishes inalienable rights from the human perspective, not God’s. The DOI is addressing man’s position with and responsibilities to man, not God’s or God.

From God’s perspective, life is more a privilege or grace. How God deals with that is beyond man’s purview, including any human court, whether secular or sacred.