Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Really? I figured there would be a more constructive, intelligent answer than this, but I guess this is asking too much.
Well Green Mariner, we are talking about Barbra Jordan. I am from Texas. I am well aware of this woman. intelligent and constructive are not words associated with her. ergo my answer.
now if we want to discuss where rights (at the very lest those listed in the Bill of Rights) come from, then we can do so.
Can a person born in China or India simply say their rights derive from the Christian sky King?
I think that Thomas Jefferson wrote in the Declaration of Independence "........endowed by their Creator....., what ever a person thinks their Creator maybe, not necessarily the Christian God. Thomas Jefferson only once used the term God in the Declaration of Independence, "..........the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and Natures God entitle them,........." again this term "God" becomes ambiguous.
The Constitution doesn't grant rights, it is a document that spells out how the "central government" will operate and its relationship with the individual States and the governed. The first sentence of the Bill of Rights says that" Congress shall make no laws..........." This then must assume that these "rights" already existed among the peoples, for congress can not make a law against something if it didn't already exist.
As long as the rights outlined in the Bill of Rights are considered to be preexisting, then there is no fragility. They are not subject to the whims of a government that is subject to all of humanities frailties.
This concept was new and revolutionary when the Framers came upon it as the bases of the government they sought to establish.
The concept that "rights" are extended by government, is the OLD not "new" construct. It is what existed BEFORE the enlightenment. It is as old as the first man capable of subjugating his fellows by his own prowess.
We now have those among us willing to use force to impose their will upon the rest of society. They call themselves "Progressives" These same "Progressives" have well articulated their disgust with the idea that rights preexist. The current president is on record suggesting the concept of "negative rights " has been an impediment to the various forms of "justice" ie social or economic).
however if history tells us anything it tells us that when we rely on government for our rights, then we will see them taken from us.
Frailty/fragility... enters the picture when men seek government for their rights.
we do have a virus in our Republic that is striking at the very heart of Freedom. THIS is in fact the battleground, As long as progressives are allowed to be part of the political landscape. AS long as they are allowed to argue that RIGHTS are extended by man made governments, then FREEDOM itself is in jeapordy.
Can a person born in China or India simply say their rights derive from the Christian sky King?
the construct put forth by the founders was not that the Christian God granted rights.
The construct is "nature and of natures God".
You seem to be falling for a common misconception. That being the application of modern understanding to ancient men.
Jefferson and the other Founders used terms that were "modern" in their own day. NOT those that would come at some point in a future they had no connection to.
If Jefferson wanted to argue Rights extend from either "The Trinity" or from "Jesus Christ" he would have said so. Instead he used terms those of the Enlightenment would have seen as a more secular approach. "Nature" but to include those of a more religious nature "and Natures God"
Jefferson's intention was echoed by the other founders. that being to clarify that RIGHTS exist on their own. They are not extended by humanity.
So the simple answer to your question is, a person living in China today is being denied the rights that they deserve by government. A government is rendered illegitimate when it denies rights that exist outside of that governments purview.
when government is the "arbiter of rights" then men are left to the whim of human frailty.
but when government is required to stay within the bounds of defending PREXISTING rights that it has no power to grant or deny, Society is protected.
In other words, something like the Bill of Rights - a human (and thus frail) construct - is required to keep government in line. (The Founders were humans, after all.) Sounds like you and Barbara Jordan aren't disagreeing that much - she referred to the Bill of Rights, not the actual rights outlined in it.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
ie social or economic). 
