The World's Largest Coalition of Nontheists and Nontheist Communities!

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?

Tags: Beck, Glenn, God, freedom, rights

0 members like this

▶ Reply to This

Replies to This Discussion

Permalink Reply by Kiru on September 27, 2010 at 5:08am

Beck is an asshole, and he seems to be quite loony. I think all the people representing the fox news network are a bit nuts. I stopped watching them a long time ago because they never gave any straight news. Just their own version of it.

▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by bobh on October 14, 2010 at 6:45pm

Human beings have created what rights we have.

▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Fred Price on November 8, 2010 at 4:38am

@Susan Stanko

Thomas Hobbes for the win!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Louis on November 24, 2010 at 2:35am

Of course human rights come from god. Who else but god could condone the execution of a person condemned on questionable evidence, garnered from torture?

Social contract, pure and simple. Glenn Beck seems like the kind of guy who think Hobbes is just an imaginary tiger.

▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Becky Coats on March 10, 2011 at 12:27pm

No kidding. But that means our dear Calvin grew up to be Beck? I hope not!

▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Becky Coats on March 10, 2011 at 12:29pm

Right, it's the ones in charge that decide what the rights are. Good point. Unfortunately, if you live in a Theocracy or Dictatorship or other Totalitarian regime, your rights are very limited if you are not of the chosen group. But, when weighing all the social norms, is there not a group of basic behaviours that are more likely than others to guarantee survival?

▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Earther on December 6, 2010 at 11:37pm

The money supports people like Glenn Beck, the taliban, Osama, etc.. As long as the networks continue to put this crap on TV and market it around the world we will hear it over and over again. Its important to have another hobby of your own so not to get bogged down by people who think like Glen Beck.

▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Greg Davis on December 10, 2010 at 9:54pm

Well, but what happens when the social contract agreed upon by the majority in a given place at a given time causes the oppression of an Other?

For example, when slavery was still a part of everyday American life... treating other human beings like property was the agreed upon social contract of the time. If we are to uphold the social contract as the source of human rights, how do we justify declaring that an oppressive social contract is wrong and take a stand against that oppression?

Moreover, if our social contract allows rights that the social contract of another nation does not, how do we declare their social contract oppressive and wrong if it is what that particular society has agreed upon?

▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Greg Davis on December 13, 2010 at 10:24pm

Nevermind, I got where I was going with that by taking a step back from the Rousseau popular sovereignty social contract and going back to Epicurus' basic "agree to neither harm nor be harmed." This seems to take care of the problem of privileged groups enforcing abridgments of the rights of others through popular sovereignty, as said abridgments would do harm unto others.