The Right To Free Speech is the Right To Lie
The Right To Bear Arms is the Right To Kill
The Right To Freedom is the Right To Oppress Others
The Right To Property is the Right To Theft
The Right To Freedom of Worship is the Right To Idolatry — Agustino

But you are still morally and legally responsible for the consequences of your free choice to lie, kill, oppress, steal. The rules of acceptable human conduct society, in general, has codified into their laws is quite consistent with the Decalogue.

Best not to confuse "right" with license. The right in the US to free speech is not in any way a "right to lie." And so with the others, mutis mutandis.

If your point is that most folks really do not understand these things, and that the reason for their failure of understanding can be found in most cases in their education, public schooling in the US over the past 100 years, then I think you're right, and right on.

Back to human rights. If in your headline you mean Humanism, some Christians will agree on substantial grounds, and some disagree, on substantial grounds. Either way is an argument to be made. Is this your topic? Do you care to develop the argument either way?

Human rights are necessary because all people are created equal. No one today lives in a theocracy. The rights are not evil, nor do they set good and evil on the same basis, rather, it demonstrates that humans have free will, as it is declared in Genesis. Religion is that of the heart, not of outward conformance. The right to free speech is not the right to lie, but rather that authorities cannot dictate what you can and cannot say. The right to bear arms is by no means a right to kill, it is a right to protect, as advocated in Scripture. The right to property is not a right to theft, but rather a guard against it. Freedom of worship is not the right to idolatry, but rather the opportunity to do right.

Human rights are God-given in the sense of free will. And as history continually proves itself, when human rights are removed, the people suffer.

I am quite perplexed by this outburst and am curious where on earth you came up with these ideas.

What's your proposed solution to the problem?

That's why the Supreme Court interprets the law for everyday cases so that "Fire!" in a movie theater is not Free Speech. The Founding Fathers were actually quite forward thinking on that front.

Having a branch of government that interprets the written Constitution for practical use. Oh wait, we already have that. It's called the Supreme Court.

The right to freedom of speech most intelligibly means "freedom from censorship". Anyone can lie, but what matters from a moral perspective is whether or not the lie was harmful. The west permits freedom of speech but it does not permit fraud and many other kinds of harmful deceitful.

The right to bear arms isn't a human right, but in so far as it can be considered one it has to do with freedom from physical coercion and the right to personal physical safety (to not be killed). The right to life (to not be killed) is much more widely held to be a fundamental human right (capital punishment not withstanding, which is ubiquitous in Christianity).

The right to be free is not the freedom to oppress others because the right is meant to apply to others as well. Your suggestion here is at best word-play and at worst a severe misunderstanding of why the west holds "freedom" close to its cultural heart.

The right to property is not the right to steal: we have laws that explicitly forbid theft. Almost paradoxically, without the right to property there is no such thing as theft to begin with. Are you positive that human rights invented greed?

The Right To Freedom of Worship is the Right To Idolatry — Agustino

It's also the freedom to not worship idols. Like "the right to be free" in general, it means that we cannot be forced to do things we do not want to do. You may think that people who genuinely worship pagan idols are doing something bad, and many of them would say that you are the bad one.

Do you want to remove our right to worship, or not worship, as we see fit, and begin forcing us at gun point under pain of death and oppression to abandon our civic and religious freedom and property in favor of Christianity?

The Decalogue has no positive content but is merely negative. It restricts what can be done. Whereas Human Rights have solely positive content, and hence miss delineating the negative. It is no wonder that Western permissive culture has adopted human rights and forgotten about the Decalogue. — Agustino

Human rights are ideal states of affairs we strive toward, but we use prohibitive laws to get there as a matter of course. If restricting harmful actions are the kind of laws you think work best, then the good news is the west has a body of case law and legislation filled with more prohibitive laws than there are verses in the holy bible. Better still (for you) many of these laws were founded on ideals found in Christianity!

Don't steal, don't kill, don't purger/defraud/slander/etc... These are prohibited actions in the west. You can however worship idols and graven images, covet your neighbor's wife's mansion's oxen, ruin your marriage by cheating (not without legal/financial penalty), pick up sticks on Sunday, blaspheme baby Jesus, and sing hymns to Baphomet, because none of those things warrant prohibiting them with force (because that would lead to oppression, unhappiness, death, etc...).

It's no wonder the contemporary west is so very less violent than its thoroughly religious medieval counterparts. Infidelity is ungodly per the Decalogue, and so adulterous women had their noses cut off as a mark and punishment. Petty thieves died by hanging, counterfeiters and fraudsters were boiled to death, while witches and heretics were impaled and burned alive.

"Exod 22:18, "Thou shalt not suffer a witch to live, "

What a curious idea this is... We aren't allowed to allow witches and wizards to continue living.

Are you positive restricting what can be done is foolproof?

Hmmmm....

Oh, good.

The Right To Free Speech is the Right To Lie — Agustino

Only when taken to the extreme.

The Right To Bear Arms is the Right To Kill — Agustino

That's just completely false.

The Right To Freedom is the Right To Oppress Others — Agustino

What?

The Right To Property is the Right To Theft — Agustino

The exact opposite.

Human rights are necessary because all people are created equal. — Waya

There is not a straight path from equality to rights.

No one today lives in a theocracy. — Waya

Iran? Also, why should we accept that theocracy is not an ideal form of government?

The rights are not evil, nor do they set good and evil on the same basis, rather, it demonstrates that humans have free will, as it is declared in Genesis — Waya

Having freedom is one thing, having a right to something is another. The Bible makes it quite clear that humans don't have "rights" - we don't deserve salvation for example.

Freedom of worship is not the right to idolatry, but rather the opportunity to do right. — Waya

It is the right to idolatry as well. Idolatry must be treated, as a result of this right, as equivalent to worship of the real God in society.

What's your proposed solution to the problem? — Baden

To remove the concept of "rights" from political discourse, and return to rules and regulations.

The Right To Freedom is the Right To Oppress Others — Agustino

Not really.
Those others also have right to freedom.
The constraint is to ensure others' same right.

There is not a straight path from equality to rights. — Agustino

They are closely related.

Iran? Also, why should we accept that theocracy is not an ideal form of government? — Agustino

Iran is definitely not a theocracy. It is a human government that falsely declares that their god is the leader.
Theocracy could be accepted, but in order for it to work, then every individual must make the personal choice to believe, which is absurd and pretty much impossible. The closest one will get is a government that is restricted by law, that ensures the God-given rights of the people. Read the book of Judges.

Having freedom is one thing, having a right to something is another. The Bible makes it quite clear that humans don't have "rights" - we don't deserve salvation for example. — Agustino

Salvation is never a right, and it is irrelevant. Rights can be abused, yes, but they are still rights. Mainly, rights protect people from each other and are advocated in Scripture. The right to life can be found by the command not to murder, which also gives support for self-defense. The right to property is found in the command to not steal.

It is the right to idolatry as well. Idolatry must be treated, as a result of this right, as equivalent to worship of the real God in society. — Agustino

What is idolatry then? How about working 7 days a week and not attending worship service? Should those people have their throats slit? What is the worship of the real God? Is this based on your standard, your opinion, your ideas? What if, for example, someone said that the icons in the church met the criteria for idolatry? Should we then stone the Catholics and Orthodox? And for the Catholics, should they then burn the "heretics" at the stake for not worshipping as they do? Or rather, should this choice be left to the individual and God?

Human rights are necessary because all people are created equal. No one today lives in a theocracy. The rights are not evil, nor do they set good and evil on the same basis, rather, it demonstrates that humans have free will, as it is declared in Genesis. — Waya

Many African and Middle eastern countries could be defined as theocracies. It demonstrates that people have choices. Also, freedom of choice is not freedom of will.

Yes, they could "define" it as such, but as many disagree on who or what makes a god real, then they can't be true theocracies. I see most nations that claim to be ruled by a god as just a human government manipulating a superstitious people.

Human Rights are the exact inverse of the Christian Decalogue: — Agustino

I had to look that up. Why not just say "Ten Commandments"?

The Right To Free Speech is the Right To Lie — Agustino

As you should know, there is no "Thou shalt not lie" in the Ten Commandments. There is, however, a "Thou shalt not bear false witness against thy neighbour". That is perjury, and perjury is an exception to the right to free speech.

The Right To Bear Arms is the Right To Kill — Agustino

No, it isn't. The right to bear arms is the right to bear arms, not the right to kill. And it's the same problem with the rest. Why don't you get your rights right, and then we can take it from there?

Human Rights are the exact inverse of the Christian Decalogue:

The Right To Free Speech is the Right To Lie
The Right To Bear Arms is the Right To Kill
The Right To Freedom is the Right To Oppress Others
The Right To Property is the Right To Theft
The Right To Freedom of Worship is the Right To Idolatry

The Decalogue has no positive content but is merely negative. It restricts what can be done. Whereas Human Rights have solely positive content, and hence miss delineating the negative. It is no wonder that Western permissive culture has adopted human rights and forgotten about the Decalogue. — Agustino

This is why legal hermeneutics are best left to those who have actually completed a Philosophy of Law (or a Law degree) course. In any legal reading, and the highest on the totem pole the act being interpreted, the more relevant this becomes, you must both consider the positive and the negative meaning. In legal mumbo jumbo terms, its called reading the a contrario of a law.

So, the Right to be protected from abusive searches and controls by government official also means, a contrario that you are not protected from un-abusive searches and controls by government officials.

All Rights have both a positive and negative claims, that is why Rights and Obligations always goes hand in hand.

We could also analyse the individual claims you make and see how each and every one of them contain clear pro aristotelico-thomist biases. Free speech doesn't actually protect from prosecution over falsehoods that caused real damages. You will likely not be able to dodge a murder charge simply because your carry papers were in order. Freedom and Oppression are too politically charged to be really useful. Theft could not be prosecuted without a concept of property being in place, so there really is nothing more false than saying that the right to property is the right to theft. And, "Idolatry", really? I mean, who cares?

The Decalogue has no positive content but is merely negative. — Agustino

The Decalogue is for the Jews, not the Christians. There are only two Christian commandments, and they are both positive - exhortations to love.

lying itself becomes a virtue, as the necessary result of the exertion of one's inalienable rights. — Agustino

I don't know of any rights campaigners that assert that it is always virtuous to exercise a right. Indeed one of the main points of free speech is that you should not be legally punished for speaking even when what you say is the opposite of virtuous. That goes right back to Voltaire's original famous one-liner about free speech.

The Decalogue is for the Jews, not the Christians. There are only two Christian commandments, and they are both positive - exhortations to love. — andrewk

Sorry, but that is false. Matthew 19:16-30, Mark 10:17-31, and Luke 18:18-30, Jesus with the rich young man reiterates the commandments of the Decalogue.

As per the Catechism : "1858. Grave matter is specified by the Ten Commandments, corresponding to the answer of Jesus to the rich young man: "Do not murder, Do not commit adultery, Do not steal, Do not bear false witness, Do not defraud, Honor your father and your mother." The gravity of sins is more or less great: murder is graver than theft. One must also take into account who is wronged: violence against parents is in itself graver than violence against a stranger."

The Right To Free Speech is the Right To Lie — Agustino

That's why the Supreme Court interprets the law for everyday cases so that "Fire!" in a movie theater is not Free Speech. The Founding Fathers were actually quite forward thinking on that front. — schopenhauer1

Falsely shouting "Fire!" in a theater and causing a panic are the words of Oliver Wendell Holmes in 1919.

The most stringent protection of free speech would not protect a man falsely shouting fire in a theater and causing a panic. [...] The question in every case is whether the words used are used in such circumstances and are of such a nature as to create a clear and present danger that they will bring about the substantive evils that Congress has a right to prevent. — Schenck v. United States

Thought you'd want to know.

I had the idea that human rights, generally, originated with Christianity, on the basis that Christ was believed to have offered salvation to all who believed in Him. This is the subject of David Bentley Hart's book Atheist Delusions, where he says that Christianity gave rise to the idea that charity is the greatest virtue and that all people are created equal, and then created institutions (such as hospitals and orphanages) to put these values into action. By contrast, Pagan Roman culture saw the worth of a person as determined by their place in a virtual cosmic food chain (hence, a slave’s word in court could never be trusted and counted for next to nothing).

Perhaps what has happened is that the concept of 'rights' has been retained, but without the concomitant obligation to the Christian ethos of service, humility, social equity and justice. So arguably late capitalism is reverting to its pagan origins - a technologically advanced paganism, in effect, but without the 'spiritual anthropology' that animated the original rationale behind human rights. (If you look at the state of US politics, you can argue that things like Voter ID laws are in effect a way to once again relegate certain individuals to an underclass who are stripped of voting rights. This is why I think Catholic social democrats are an important albeit minority voice in US politics.)

@Agustino - if you haven't read it, you might find The Strange Persistence of Guilt germane to your inquiry.

Your list is not a list of human rights, it's a list of liberal rights, and they are negative, not positive. Positive rights entail an obligation on others to do x (e.g. support someone else financially, obey agreed-upon rules, contracts, etc.), negative rights impose only an obligation on others to refrain from doing y (e.g. from interfering with someone else's control of their body, their property, etc.).

Take the right to free speech for instance. This right sets the truth and the lie on equal footing. It gives one authority to lie and be protected for lying - indeed, lying itself becomes a virtue, as the necessary result of the exertion of one's inalienable rights. — Agustino

This is absolute nonsense. The right to free speech is a right to be allowed by others to express one's opinions. Especially (and obviously) in complex matters, such as politics and religion, truth and falsity cannot be prejudged because there is no Central Scrutinizer with a hotline to reality who is able to definitively and certainly judge.

Indeed, this is part of the advantage of the right to free speech, it's what makes liberal societies powerful in the discovery of truth (because it sets in motion a distributed discovery process: if everyone's free to express their opinion, then opinions can be tested, and the truth hopefully discovered - any attempt to pre-judge that would short-circuit the discovery process and we'd be stuck with some asshole's opinion about truth and falsity being enforced on society).

On the other hand, certain types of lying (e.g. slander) do not fall under free speech protection.

Yes, thanks I am familiar with that decision and many of the other ones related to First Amendment.

The Decalogue has no positive content but is merely negative. — Agustino

Well, 4 and 5 are positive:

Remember the Sabbath day, to keep it holy. (Is Heschell or Agnon who calls the sabbath "a cathedral in time"?
Honor your father and your mother.

Do you find the prohibition on murder and adultery (adultery! Agustino) to be negative? I would think you would consider those positive. I John 5:3 says "His commandments are not burdensome". Ar you finding the Big Ten to be something of a pain?

Human Rights are the exact inverse of the Christian Decalogue: — Agustino

Your logic is a bit odd, but if it were right, so much the worse for Christianity's claim to moral worth.

The Right To Property is the Right To Theft — Agustino

May we expect you to begin quoting Proudhon now--Property is Theft?

May we expect you to begin quoting Proudhon now--Property is Theft? — Bitter Crank

The next thing you know, he'll be burning his bra. Mark my words.

The Right To Bear Arms is the Right To Kill — Agustino

Laughing, in that sad way one does when faced with that obscene gun obsession that somehow worked its way into American mythology.

Yes, they could "define" it as such, but as many disagree on who or what makes a god real, then they can't be true theocracies. I see most nations that claim to be ruled by a god as just a human government manipulating a superstitious people. — Waya

Then there would be no use for the word, as no governments has ever been able to meet that specification for a theocracy. A theocracy is a government run by the church leaders. Those countries are theocracy by that definition. Most? Don't you mean all? You can't even have the rule by clergy without people willing enough to listen to the "god given" mandates.

Matthew 19:16-30, Mark 10:17-31, and Luke 18:18-30 — Akanthinos

The devil can cite scripture for his purpose.

That applies to me as well as to you of course.

It's sad, for sure, but Agustino isn't American, German, or Francois. He's not British, Finnish, Swedish, Norskish, Danish, Dutchish, Swissish, Polish, Spanish, etc. Maybe Bulgarian, Rumanian, Moldovian, Ukranian, Byelorussian, but not Italian.