* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
Rights: Products Of, Subordinate To Human Reason, Social Contract
(Apollonian, 12 Nov 14)
U can ck the Talmud on-line at Come-and-hear.com. (See below-copied.)
Life is grim business of war of all against all, according to Thomas Hobbes, so the main purpose is, must be, to survive.
Thus those who make up the commonwealth (or society) devise a social contract, product of reason, reason the main tool of human survival.
So the white Christians of 13 states, fully independent at the time, devised the Constitution, best thing they could come up w. for social contract.
Since they were all Christians they knew they understood same basic things--Jews were (and are) utterly foreign monsters--just ck their Talmud--but which makes them master criminals and liars.
The Constitution is MEANS not Ends--ends being survival and more, a truly human life in accord w. reason and law.
U make the Constitution, Bill of Rights to being God, end-all and be-all--it's not at all, as I note, it being mere means oriented to survival, as noted.
And no one says anyone should "kill in name of God"; question is how to survive which means reason, thus soc.-contract (Constitution being the practical expression of such contract). So u see Const. is just a make-shift for the soc.-contract existing in the un-spoken natural law, in accord w. reason.
So then, what actually are "rights"?--they're conventions in agreement (in reason) for what's necessary for human living, consisting of "right-reason," according to Roman, Cicero, "do no harm," being another precept known fm Aquinas.
So the Constitutional soc. contract was a practical instrument dependent upon conditions, Bill of Rights being things that people wanted AGAINST THE GOV., as the English folk had generated fm experience.
Primary precept was sovereignty of individuals, power coming fm the individuals to local gov., then county, then state--and then they decided upon the "Federal" union--a confederation, NOT a "nation," as states were always considered the national units, though this steadily eroded to the crisis of 1830 and S. Carolina "nullification" controversy whence A. Jackson threatened to attack the state.
So since the individual is sovereign, the only higher power is God--thus "God-given" rights, products of reason, nature, in agreement w. other citizens having equal rights.
Rights, gov., soc-contract are primary means of DEFENSE against the rest of the world seen as the threat--and also against internal criminals who violate reason and law.
Jews were NEVER, could NEVER have been imagined as part of "the people"--citizens--Jews always seen as monsters, gloating over killing Christ, at war w. gentiles, etc.
So rights are no more "God-given" than reason, rights being SUBJECT to human reason--subject to rational agreement among men. Right to life is conditioned upon not being threat. As soon as one is credible threat, one loses the right--that's how state has "right" to kill/execute criminals duly found guilty in court of law, in accord w. justice whence he LOSES his right and life, etc.
So Jews, being anti-human monsters, could NEVER have been citizens (in reason) and can never have rights, they being enemies of God, humanity, reason, etc.
Thus are "rights" understood in light of reason, rights only arising in accord w. reason, rights subject to reason, products of human reason.
-------------------------above by ap in response to below-copied----------------------------------
AnonymousNov 12, 2014, 7:43:00 PM
Good - I don't have to read the Talmud. Sounds boring anyway. Thank you for that I was already dreading reading it.
And to read the Talmud I'd have to go steal 'cause I won't pay for it and don't know anyone who has a copy or has ever even mentioned it.
Shuck the Talmud and the rest of this gibberish already. The pope himself just recently and finally admitted that killing in the name of God is blasphemy. Even the Vatican couldn't keep that lie up anymore. The point is that we have to do what is right to solve the problems that ail us. When we say "us" we must define the term - to me "us" means those who may admit that the Constitution may be flawed but are not willing to give up the bill of rights part of it. We use the bill of rights as the commonality that defines "us." Anyone who tries to take those rights away is an enemy of "ours" and it doesn't matter if they are Jews or not - they both get the same punishment. So defining Jews is unimportant to the preservation of our rights - God given or not.