Philosophy Discussion Forums | A Humans-Only Club for Open-Minded Discussion & Debate

[HJCarden]

How is it possible for someone to claim that they have "rights" as a citizen of a particular country?

While many would respond that they have rights because of the laws of whatever country they live in, this is by no means a satisfactory response as laws can easily be changed and governing bodies frequently violate the rights of their own citizens.

IF citizens of a particular country were to actually believe that they had "rights", these rights must necessarily be rooted in something other than the laws and traditions of the land. I believe that one possible answer is to say that the rights of citizens are rooted in the divine, essentially that God gives all persons rights.

However, if one were to believe this, they seemingly could not also believe in a separation of Church and State, as is the case with many people in my country.

Therefore, how is one to truly have rights in a country that believes in the separation of church and state?

[LuckyR]

How is it possible for someone to claim that they have "rights" as a citizen of a particular country?

While many would respond that they have rights because of the laws of whatever country they live in, this is by no means a satisfactory response as laws can easily be changed and governing bodies frequently violate the rights of their own citizens.

IF citizens of a particular country were to actually believe that they had "rights", these rights must necessarily be rooted in something other than the laws and traditions of the land. I believe that one possible answer is to say that the rights of citizens are rooted in the divine, essentially that God gives all persons rights.

However, if one were to believe this, they seemingly could not also believe in a separation of Church and State, as is the case with many people in my country.

Therefore, how is one to truly have rights in a country that believes in the separation of church and state?

You're baffled by lay persons declaring illogical things?

Speaking of illogical entities, you're making a logic error if you are denying that decisions by religious leaders aren't subject to (often significant) change over time, not dissimilar to that experienced by laws.

[Pattern-chaser]

How is it possible for someone to claim that they have "rights" as a citizen of a particular country?

While many would respond that they have rights because of the laws of whatever country they live in, this is by no means a satisfactory response as laws can easily be changed and governing bodies frequently violate the rights of their own citizens.

IF citizens of a particular country were to actually believe that they had "rights", these rights must necessarily be rooted in something other than the laws and traditions of the land. I believe that one possible answer is to say that the rights of citizens are rooted in the divine, essentially that God gives all persons rights.

However, if one were to believe this, they seemingly could not also believe in a separation of Church and State, as is the case with many people in my country.

Therefore, how is one to truly have rights in a country that believes in the separation of church and state?

Rights, and the duties that go with them, but are so often forgotten, are granted by our fellow citizens via "laws and traditions". There is no 'authority' that grants these rights; we grant them to ourselves and each other. I can't see this has anything to do with churches, it's to do with society and "the state".

[Thomyum2]

How is it possible for someone to claim that they have "rights" as a citizen of a particular country?

While many would respond that they have rights because of the laws of whatever country they live in, this is by no means a satisfactory response as laws can easily be changed and governing bodies frequently violate the rights of their own citizens.

IF citizens of a particular country were to actually believe that they had "rights", these rights must necessarily be rooted in something other than the laws and traditions of the land. I believe that one possible answer is to say that the rights of citizens are rooted in the divine, essentially that God gives all persons rights.

However, if one were to believe this, they seemingly could not also believe in a separation of Church and State, as is the case with many people in my country.

Therefore, how is one to truly have rights in a country that believes in the separation of church and state?

I think the problem is just a linguistic one. Rights aren't actually something that we 'have' - rather, they are freedoms from coercion that we assert or claim for ourselves and that, when successful in making our claim, we codify into law. In a democratic environment, we institutionalize rights in the constitution of governments by imposing limitations on governmental powers. So, for example, if you read the text of the Bill of Rights amendments in the US Constitution, you see that the wording does not really state that citizens 'have' rights, but rather that the government is prohibited from regulating or prohibiting certain types of activities, e.g.: 'Congress shall make no law....' In other words, a 'right', in practice, is simply a restriction on powers of government and not something that a citizen possesses. One only 'has' rights in as much as one's government is limited in that respect. I think the notion that we 'have' rights, is a rhetorical statement of that assertion - a verbal way of making our claim to that limitation on the use of authority.

Similarly, the phrase 'separation of church and state', is just another name we've given to one class of these limitations, namely that government be restricted from using its powers in ways that favor one particular religion over another or impose any kind of regulation of worship or practice of individual religious beliefs. But the wording of this particular amendment is rather vague, which I think over the years has made for a lack of clarity on where exactly this boundary was intended to lie.