What is a Christian nationalist?

[DixonHur 11074]

1 minute ago, BrickHorn said:

No. I have the right to free speech. That is a right that exists, because it is enforceable by the relevant authority that applies to me. Russian citizens do not.

The point you make actually shows that free speech is not a natural right, because its existence is jurisdiction-dependent.

Only in terms of a nation state, which is a relatively recent human invention.

I think you're conflating rights with laws.  Just because nation states trample on your rights, doesn't mean they are not natural rights.  It just means they have the "might" to take them away.  Again, you're arguing might makes right.

[BrickHorn 18176]

15 minutes ago, DixonHur said:

I guess the right for you to miss the other 2 times I've posted the specific rights would be a natural right.

If you posted them, I missed it. Even after a quick read back through the thread, I didn’t see any specific list of natural rights from you. Link?

[DixonHur 11074]

Just now, David Dennison said:

According to your definition, everything is a right.

And according to yours, nothing is

[Dnaguy 11740]

Christian god given rights weirdly didn’t kick in until 1776.

Thats a curious timeline considering Jesus Christ lived around 40 BCE.

You would have thought these inalienable rights would have popped up sooner than almost 1800 years after the son, father, and Holy Spirit came together a la Captain Planet / Voltron / Megazord style.

[David Dennison 18605]

Just now, DixonHur said:

And according to yours, nothing is

That's not true. It's a right if it is defined and enforced by man.

[BrickHorn 18176]

 

3 minutes ago, DixonHur said:

I think you're conflating rights with laws.  Just because nation states trample on your rights, doesn't mean they are not natural rights.  It just means they have the "might" to take them away.  Again, you're arguing might makes right.

The version of rights you and troph advocate is useless crap. They can be trampled. No one has to respect them. No one is punished then they violate them. They might not even know about them. But you have them and no one can ever take them away (except all the times they do so without consequence of even knowledge)!!!

Magical little elves was an unfair comparison. Elves have more relevance to our lives than this impotent concept of rights. 

Edited February 24 by BrickHorn

[DixonHur 11074]

Just now, David Dennison said:

That's not true. It's a right if it is defined and enforced by man.

But that's not a "right", because it's not universal.  That is more akin to a privilege. 

[David Dennison 18605]

Just now, DixonHur said:

But that's not a "right", because it's not universal.  That is more akin to a privilege. 

Rights are only universal if everyone agrees on them.

[BrickHorn 18176]

4 minutes ago, DixonHur said:

Only in terms of a nation state, which is a relatively recent human invention.

Why do you assume a nation state is the only authority that can enforce a right? It could be tribe or clan or family or whatever. The point is that a right is some behavioral limitation on members of a society, which is enforced by the authority that presides over that society.  And mankind has lived in societies from the outset. /Costanza

[David Dennison 18605]

Just now, BrickHorn said:

Why do you assume a nation state is the only authority that can enforce a right? It could be tribe or clan or family or whatever. The point is that a right is some behavioral limitation on members of a society, which is enforced by the authority that presides over that society.  And mankind has lived in societies from the outset. /Costanza

Everyone got along in the before times.

[DixonHur 11074]

Just now, BrickHorn said:

 

The version of rights you and troph advocate sound like a bunch of useless crap. They can be trampled. No one has to respect them. No one is punished then they violate them. They might not even know about them. But you have them and no one can ever take them away (except all the times they do so without consequence of even knowledge)!!!

Magical little elves was an unfair comparison. Elves have more relevance to our lives than this impotent concept of rights. 

Sadly, in today's world, you are mostly correct, but not because the rights never existed, but rather because people with the desire for power and money took them away by force and made you believe they were setting you free.

But if you want to move out into the wilderness, they still exist...unfortunately, most of us are social creatures and wouldn't last in that kind of isolation.  But the option (IE right) exists to do so.

And up until the arrival of Europeans many cultures in the Americas practiced societies without express laws or means to enforce them.  

[DixonHur 11074]

1 minute ago, David Dennison said:

Everyone got along in the before times.

Read the book I recommended...that is not universally true, but was common among some groups.

[David Dennison 18605]

Just now, DixonHur said:

Sadly, in today's world, you are mostly correct, but not because the rights never existed, but rather because people with the desire for power and money took them away by force and made you believe they were setting you free.

But if you want to move out into the wilderness, they still exist...unfortunately, most of us are social creatures and wouldn't last in that kind of isolation.  But the option (IE right) exists to do so.

And up until the arrival of Europeans many cultures in the Americas practiced societies without express laws or means to enforce them.  

Those societies had implied laws, i.e., societal norms, and they definitely had means to enforce them.

[DixonHur 11074]

3 minutes ago, BrickHorn said:

Why do you assume a nation state is the only authority that can enforce a right? It could be tribe or clan or family or whatever. The point is that a right is some behavioral limitation on members of a society, which is enforced by the authority that presides over that society.  And mankind has lived in societies from the outset. /Costanza

Because today 99% of the world is ruled by nation states.

[David Dennison 18605]

1 minute ago, DixonHur said:

Read the book I recommended...that is not universally true, but was common among some groups.

Getting along without a centralized body politic is still a form of politics.

[956 Worldwide 34313]

20 minutes ago, troph said:

I’ve already said these natural rights are born out of natural law and in some aspects are evident in our and other animal instincts. I believe they are not man made. I don’t even believe they are specific to humans. I believe in natural order. I think much of what ails us is a failure to respect and enforce that order. I think that order involves rights to exist within that order. 

As for enforcement, even in lawless societies if you take the right to live away from a person you might lose yours. You said it is gray why are you making it black and white? 

There has been a lot of interesting work on the overlap between ethics and evolutionary biology and evolutionary game theory. 

[DixonHur 11074]

Just now, David Dennison said:

Those societies had implied laws, i.e., societal norms, and they definitely had means to enforce them.

Societal norms do not infringe upon rights unless the power to enforce and punish exists...which it didn't in many societies throughout history.  The only mechanism for enforcement was being shunned.  They had no concept of prison, taking property or other punitive measures.    

2 minutes ago, David Dennison said:

Getting along without a centralized body politic is still a form of politics.

That's the point...they weren't all centralized.

You're looking at things through a modern lens.

[David Dennison 18605]

4 minutes ago, DixonHur said:

Societal norms do not infringe upon rights unless the power to enforce and punish exists...which it didn't in many societies throughout history.  The only mechanism for enforcement was being shunned.  They had no concept of prison, taking property or other punitive measures.    

Well, they certainly had a concept of violence, which, again, is politics by other means.

Also, being shunned is a form of politics.

Edited February 24 by David Dennison

[BrickHorn 18176]

3 minutes ago, DixonHur said:

Because today 99% of the world is ruled by nation states.

Right but your point was that my argument didn’t apply until nation states emerged. In other words, you argued that my argument did not apply in the past because there were no nation states at that time. When I noted that nation states were not necessary to the point and thus it still held in the past, you retorted with “yeah but it’s all nation states now.” 

Are you acting confused on purpose?

[DixonHur 11074]

Just now, David Dennison said:

Well, they certainly had a concept of violence, which, again, is politics by other means.

I'd love to see the evidence that all societies were violent.

[David Dennison 18605]

Just now, DixonHur said:

I'd love to see the evidence that all societies were violent.

I'd love to see the evidence that violence never affected a society.

[956 Worldwide 34313]

16 minutes ago, David Dennison said:

That's not true. It's a right if it is defined and enforced by man.

You’re wandering into semantics (most of these types of debates do) by embedding your argument in the definition you want everyone to use. 

[DixonHur 11074]

Just now, BrickHorn said:

Right but your point was that my argument didn’t apply until nation states emerged. In other words, you argued that my argument did not apply in the past because there were no nation states at that time. When I noted that nation states were not necessary to the point and thus it still held in the past, you retorted with “yeah but it’s all nation states now.” 

Are you acting confused on purpose?

No my argument was about the modern world...and the modern world is 99% controlled by nation states.  

 

[David Dennison 18605]

Just now, 956 Worldwide said:

You’re wandering into semantics (most of these types of debates do) by embedding your argument in the definition you want everyone to use. 

Agreeing on a definition is one of the first thing you have to do before engaging in an argument.

[DixonHur 11074]

14 minutes ago, BrickHorn said:

Why do you assume a nation state is the only authority that can enforce a right? It could be tribe or clan or family or whatever. The point is that a right is some behavioral limitation on members of a society, which is enforced by the authority that presides over that society.  And mankind has lived in societies from the outset. /Costanza

Çatalhöyük is one of the oldest cities so far uncovered in the world...however they haven't found any evidence of a ruling class, leaders, or any other form of structuralized government.

[BrickHorn 18176]

5 minutes ago, DixonHur said:

No my argument was about the modern world...and the modern world is 99% controlled by nation states.  

 

Can you please pay attention to what you post? What you wrote was:

24 minutes ago, DixonHur said:

Only in terms of a nation state, which is a relatively recent human invention.

Emphasis mine. Your point was that my argument only applies since nation states emerged. And when I rebutted that, you got confused about what your original point was. But it’s there in black and white for everyone to see, so I don’t see the sense in debating it further. 

Edited February 24 by BrickHorn

[David Dennison 18605]

2 minutes ago, DixonHur said:

Çatalhöyük is one of the oldest cities so far uncovered in the world...however they haven't found any evidence of a ruling class, leaders, or any other form of structuralized government.

You know what they say about absence of evidence.

[BrickHorn 18176]

Just now, David Dennison said:

You know what they say about absence of evidence.

It’s an irrelevant point anyway. Every society has some authority, even if it’s merely mutual agreement between equal members.

[troph 24547]

29 minutes ago, David Dennison said:

According to your definition, everything is a right.

I don’t have a natural right to be a lawyer, to make money, fly on a plane, drive a car, etc etc etc. 

[BrickHorn 18176]

1 minute ago, troph said:

I don’t have a natural right to be a lawyer, to make money, fly on a plane, drive a car, etc etc etc. 

Why not? Who says so? What law of nature draws that line?

And the serial etceteras are doing some work there…

Edited February 24 by BrickHorn

[DixonHur 11074]

39 minutes ago, BrickHorn said:

No. I have the right to free speech. That is a right that exists, because it is enforceable by the relevant authority that applies to me. Russian citizens do not.

The point you make actually shows that free speech is not a natural right, because its existence is jurisdiction-dependent.

 

31 minutes ago, DixonHur said:

Only in terms of a nation state, which is a relatively recent human invention.

I think you're conflating rights with laws.  Just because nation states trample on your rights, doesn't mean they are not natural rights.  It just means they have the "might" to take them away.  Again, you're arguing might makes right.

 

26 minutes ago, BrickHorn said:

Why do you assume a nation state is the only authority that can enforce a right? It could be tribe or clan or family or whatever. The point is that a right is some behavioral limitation on members of a society, which is enforced by the authority that presides over that society.  And mankind has lived in societies from the outset. /Costanza

 

24 minutes ago, DixonHur said:

Sadly, in today's world, you are mostly correct, but not because the rights never existed, but rather because people with the desire for power and money took them away by force and made you believe they were setting you free.

But if you want to move out into the wilderness, they still exist...unfortunately, most of us are social creatures and wouldn't last in that kind of isolation.  But the option (IE right) exists to do so.

And up until the arrival of Europeans many cultures in the Americas practiced societies without express laws or means to enforce them.  

 

21 minutes ago, DixonHur said:

Because today 99% of the world is ruled by nation states.

 

14 minutes ago, BrickHorn said:

Right but your point was that my argument didn’t apply until nation states emerged. In other words, you argued that my argument did not apply in the past because there were no nation states at that time. When I noted that nation states were not necessary to the point and thus it still held in the past, you retorted with “yeah but it’s all nation states now.” 

Are you acting confused on purpose?

 

12 minutes ago, DixonHur said:

No my argument was about the modern world...and the modern world is 99% controlled by nation states.  

 

 

7 minutes ago, BrickHorn said:

Can you please pay attention to what you post? What you wrote was:

Emphasis mine. Your point was that my argument only applies since nation states emerged. And when I rebutted that, you got confused about what your original point was. But it’s there in black and white for everyone to see, so I don’t see the sense in debating it further. 

Perhaps if you're going to try to have a gotcha moment you should consider the entire conversation.  We were clearly discussing the modern world, not ancient times.

Notice you are using the present tense in each of your posts?  So unsurprisingly I was replying based on the way things are today.

[troph 24547]

4 minutes ago, BrickHorn said:

Why not? Who says so? What law of nature draws that line?

And the serial etceteras are doing some work there…

Bbl. 

[BrickHorn 18176]

2 minutes ago, DixonHur said:

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Perhaps if you're going to try to have a gotcha moment you should consider the entire conversation.  We were clearly discussing the modern world, not ancient times.

Notice you are using the present tense in each of your posts?  So unsurprisingly I was replying based on the way things are today.

Good lord what a pile of nonsense. You stated that my point only existed in the present, given a relatively recent political development. That is a fucking temporal distinction, and it’s entirely irrelevant as I noted. 

Have fun continuing to confuse yourself. I appreciate your posts on other threads, so I’m going to politely withdraw from this weird Who’s on First? routine I seem to be in with you here.

[David Dennison 18605]

Getting back on track . . . CHRISTIAN NATIONALISTS BAD!!!!

[DixonHur 11074]

7 minutes ago, BrickHorn said:

Good lord what a pile of nonsense. You stated that my point only existed in the present, given a relatively recent political development. That is a fucking temporal distinction, and it’s entirely irrelevant as I noted. 

Have fun continuing to confuse yourself. I appreciate your posts on other threads, so I’m going to politely withdraw from this weird Who’s on First? routine I seem to be in with you here.

Just because you got called out on your BS, don't take it out on me.

You know damn well you were talking about modern times...unless you meant the rights in the US and Russian that existed in antiquity.  

[DixonHur 11074]

8 minutes ago, David Dennison said:

Getting back on track . . . CHRISTIAN NATIONALISTS BAD!!!!

Basically, anything combined with nationalist is bad.

[Hugo Stiglitz 23356]

So to summarize, everything is bullshit and the Christian nationalist bullshit is much much worse than our established bullshit that holds this circus called civilization together. 
 

/Howard Beale

[David Dennison 18605]

Just now, Hugo Stiglitz said:

So to summarize, everything is bullshit and the Christian nationalist bullshit is much much worse than our established bullshit that holds this circus called civilization together. 
 

/Howard Beale

[BrickHorn 18176]

9 minutes ago, DixonHur said:

Just because you got called out on your BS, don't take it out on me.

You know damn well you were talking about modern times...unless you meant the rights in the US and Russian that existed in antiquity.  

The record speaks for itself, no matter how badly you wish to put words in its mouth after the fact. 

Regardless, I’ll make it crystal clear: my point is not limited to nation states. Any societal authority that has ever existed, down to mutual agreement and respect for custom, will suffice. 

Now please tell us how it’s important to note that 99.9% of modern political entities are nation states, for some weird reason.

Edited February 25 by BrickHorn

[DixonHur 11074]

1 minute ago, BrickHorn said:

The record speaks for itself, no matter how badly you wish to put words in its mouth after the fact. 

Regardless, I’ll make it clear: my point is not limited to nation states. Any societal authority that has ever existed, down to mutual agreement and respect for custom, will suffice. 

Now please tell us how it’s important to note that 99.9% of modern political entities are nation states, for some weird reason.

Because there are plenty of examples of societies in antiquity that operated without laws, or governments, but they are now obsolete because they were all conquered on the way to creating the world we live in today that is dominated by nation states. 

Simply put, there aren't many places left on earth to implement the types of societies that once existed.  Thus 99.9% of us are now beholden to the laws of nation states whether we agree with them or not.

[956 Worldwide 34313]

55 minutes ago, softlynow said:

This is coming across as resentment of your inability to defend your position. Just FYI.

Your strongest point has been that jettisoning our framework for ordering society would be catastrophic. Unfortunately, that point only proves your opponent’s position to be true. Without human enforcement of rights, they are not operative. Meaning they do not exist, or they are meaningless.

Also, saying “natural rights don’t exist” doesn’t (for all of us) mean that we want to ditch that construct as a call to action. Keeping it makes it easier to communicate with the masses and many decision-makers who lack the flexibility of thought to question the “truths” they’ve grown up knowing. I just think it’s best to not be deluded into thinking we don’t have to work at keeping and protecting those rights we hold dear.

My argument is that we’re mixing up the directional arrows. The experiment of society got off the ground in the first place as a method of humans seeking to (in a fumbling and incomplete way) secure the rights they felt they had. Whether due to evolutionary strategy or the divine spark is kind of irrelevant. It’s not that losing the framework would be catastrophic. It’s that the framework is what made human social interaction meaningful. 
 

You can say that rights are meaningless without a human (social) enforcement mechanism.  Oh the flip side, it’s meaningless to talk about any social order or cooperation absent some form of recognition of rights.  It’s just who hits the other person with a rock first and hardest.  The fact that we innately do not have the urge to do that is pointing to a shared understanding of right and wrong that came from somewhere— again, there are lots options where. 
 

Early Mesoamerica is a good example. SOME people absolutely had a right to life in that society, and many more rights as well.  There has never been a truly “no one has rights” society. 

[TwiceHorn 31184]

2 hours ago, BrickHorn said:

…and takes measures to enforce them or punish their violation.

Many posters on this thread muddle the distinction between morality (guidelines for how humans should behave) and rights (rules defining how humans are compelled, by agreement or authority, to behave).

Well, the discussion becomes a bit more interesting if you back up a step to natural law, the set of moral principles to which you refer. 

The enforceable rights flow from some source of law or morality. Is that entirely man-made or is there some external component or driver? 

[956 Worldwide 34313]

1 hour ago, BrickHorn said:

Thanks for being the first participant in this thread to attempt to list the natural rights. Kudos. But now let’s examine the claim. 

Many of the alleged natural rights you listed have not been recognized or respected as rights at all in various cultures and periods throughout history. For example, human sacrifice (a common facet of life most recently in Mesoamerica) rejects living as a right. Even in the modern era, we deny the alleged “right” to life during wartime. There is no recourse for killing enemy combatants or inadvertently killing civilians in a conflict. Many societies throughout history have castrated slaves, reflecting a rejection of the supposed natural right to procreate. 

So what makes any of these things a natural right? I would argue it’s clear that they have at many points not been rights at all; that is, there was no authority protecting them or punishing their infringement. You might argue that murder and castration were always immoral. But even granting that premise for sake of argument, these moral principles do not amount to a right because there was no enforcement recourse. 

The idea of a “natural right” is defensible, at most, as a shorthand for certain moral principles that seem obvious to most people. But even then, their inviolability quickly crumbles on close inspection. What you end up with is a series of nuanced, context-dependent guidelines. Our shared moral instincts developed through evolutionary processes and are almost never as simple and idealistic as we would like to believe.

The world is gray. If you wish it were not and invoking the magical little elves of naturalism help you sleep at night, so be it. But you’ll forever be fighting paradoxes of your own making. It’s more useful to recognize human behavior for what it is and understand morality and legal regimes as tools for guiding that behavior in the most positive direction possible. 

What is the mechanism to establish a shared understanding of “the most positive direction possible?” 

[David Dennison 18605]

22 minutes ago, TwiceHorn said:

Well, the discussion becomes a bit more interesting if you back up a step to natural law, the set of moral principles to which you refer. 

The enforceable rights flow from some source of law or morality. Is that entirely man-made or is there some external component or driver? 

The only external component or driver possible is evolutionary biology. 

[Hookah Horns 3058]

1 hour ago, troph said:

You have a right to free speech regardless so do Russians. Men interfere with that right but they cannot stop you absent killing you or cutting out your throat. But the law to imprison you does not take that natural right away. 

Lol wut. Sorry but this is not a winning argument. 

[Hookah Horns 3058]

28 minutes ago, 956 Worldwide said:

What is the mechanism to establish a shared understanding of “the most positive direction possible?” 

Treaties on human rights? 

[softlynow 1774]

18 minutes ago, 956 Worldwide said:

My argument is that we’re mixing up the directional arrows. The experiment of society got off the ground in the first place as a method of humans seeking to (in a fumbling and incomplete way) secure the rights they felt they had. Whether due to evolutionary strategy or the divine spark is kind of irrelevant. It’s not that losing the framework would be catastrophic. It’s that the framework is what made human social interaction meaningful. 

If that was your argument, then you weren't making it clearly. The following quotes do not support you currently stated thesis, but rather my interpretation:

 

7 hours ago, 956 Worldwide said:

One of my least favorite recurring themes is how often well-meaning progressives placidly announce that naturalism vs. positivism has been obviously and definitively settled in favor of positivism; then react with utter horror when their ideological opponents immediately grasp the implications and eagerly implement. 

 

 

7 hours ago, 956 Worldwide said:

Well, if you follow BrickHorn’s reasoning (rights only exist if the state enforces them or if we all “agree” to them), then if I am a Christian ethno-nationalist my ear perk right up.  What my well-meaning progressive opponents may mean is that the right to free speech can be constrained in ways to avoid harm to larger groups and people, especially if we can achieve consensus that we want to. And that works pretty well in high-consensus, cohesive societies.

But what I mean is I am a Christian ethno-nationalist is this: You may think you have the right to contraception, but I disagree.  And I am going to display a stronger will to power and the state I will control will compel my opinion to prevail.  So let’s go at it and see who comes out on top, may the stronger of us rule and the weaker submit (this is fascism in a nutshell). You had a right, but it went away, I’m stronger. 
 

To bring this back around, you can disagree with the founders that natural rights exist but the idea of natural rights basically underpins the entire concept of our Declaration of Independence and Bill of Rights, or even the idea of “limited government.”

 If all that preserves them is majoritarian consensus that thereby exercises power and maintains them, they hang by a pretty thin thread.  You’re better served by trying to keep the Christian nationalists paying lip-service to the idea of natural rights than talking them out of the concept. 

In any event. I disagree with that thesis as well. Like most rheotorical devices, the concept of natural rights just made persuasion easier. 

 

Now the next part:

 

22 minutes ago, 956 Worldwide said:

You can say that rights are meaningless without a human (social) enforcement mechanism.  Oh the flip side, it’s meaningless to talk about any social order or cooperation absent some form of recognition of rights.  It’s just who hits the other person with a rock first and hardest.  The fact that we innately do not have the urge to do that is pointing to a shared understanding of right and wrong that came from somewhere— again, there are lots options where.  

 

Which leads us back to a definition of rights. You are, here, working with a different one than the generally accepted one. Your "right" is really just shared compunction. Does that exist? Absolutely. Does calling that a right make any sense? Yes, to the extent that it is persuasive to get societal buy-in to give force to others to cofiy that feeling with a mechanism to level the playing field at the level of the more temperate amongst us.

 

And the last:

 

22 minutes ago, 956 Worldwide said:

Early Mesoamerica is a good example. SOME people absolutely had a right to life in that society, and many more rights as well.  There has never been a truly “no one has rights” society. 

 

Cool. That doesn't seem to address anything I said. It may be pointed at DixonHur and his cite of Çatalhöyük (yes, I know it was in modern day Turkey, for those who would proceed to argue like my mother).

[atomheartbevo 89362]

1 hour ago, troph said:

Bbl. 

That dog is just waiting on some strange woman lying on her back in the water to throw it a sword, but that dog has no right to wield supreme executive power just because some watery tart threw a sword at it.

[Neonmoon 38127]

Here is a Christian Nationalist

 

[956 Worldwide 34313]

22 minutes ago, Hookah Horns said:

Treaties on human rights? 

We have those and they ground themselves in the idea that rights exist and belong to individuals by virtue of being human. They are discussed as inalienable and not “granted”; people simply have them.

My broader point is towards BrickHorn’s seemingly strict  and consequentialist view of how this ought to work. That’s a view with a long and distinguished tradition but it’s hardly settled and there are plenty of shoals to founder on. Namely (bringing it back to Christian nationalism)— on what grounds can we say that their vision of a “positive direction” is in fact inferior to other visions that respect individual conscience? 
 

We can find an answer with reference to natural rights (and that’s what the Enlightenment, then founders were trying to do). It gets harder if we have a consequentialist view, because who arbitrates the goodness or badness of the consequences?