"universal rights of the people"

[John81]

This phrase, "universal rights of the people", and other similar phrases seems to be a common theme when America is trying to tell other nations how they must conduct themselves. Just what does this mean? Who determines what is or isn't the "universal rights of the people"? Is it only those America dislikes that must abide by the "universal rights of the people"?

Along these lines, what has America's response been when other nations have tried to tell America something similar whether in regards to the American "civil war", the time of the "civil rights" movement, or others?

Why does America demand that Egypt or Libya must respect the "universal rights of the people" but not Pakistan or India? Why not Iran or China?

Why do so many Christians buy into this man-made doctrine of a "universal rights of the people"? Why do some Christians take it so far that it's either virtually elevated above Scripture or is elevated above Scripture? Why is this doctrine such a centerpiece of the "social gospel" crowd?

[Bro Jim]

God created man, Col. Colt made them equal, but only Jesus Christ can get you into Heaven.

[trc123]

Our current Secretary of State last week notified the world that Internet access is a universal human right! Go figure!

[Guest]

Our current Secretary of State last week notified the world that Internet access is a universal human right! Go figure!

Yes, it's a universal right. Haven't you found the RJ-45 port? Its on your left side 4th rib bone from the top. Or, maybe you came with a wireless
connection and don't know how to configure it.

[no name joe]

Someone supported the US when we declared independence from England and the people stood up to against the king who was oppressive and taxed the colonists without giving them a representative voice in the government. France supported us. The Dutch loaned us millions and millions of dollars to fund our war against England.

Should we not do the same for others when the people rise against their oppressive leader? You ask why not China? their people are not rising up. You cannot create any form of representative government if it does not rise up out of the people there. In Egypt, people are revolting to overthrow an oppressive regime, and we ought to support their efforts.

Why is internet access a "universal right?" because it empowers the people. If the government shuts it off and controls acces, it controls information and solidifies its power. It is not internet per se, but right to information and free speech.

[JerryNumbers]

This phrase, "universal rights of the people", and other similar phrases seems to be a common theme when America is trying to tell other nations how they must conduct themselves. Just what does this mean? Who determines what is or isn't the "universal rights of the people"? Is it only those America dislikes that must abide by the "universal rights of the people"?

Along these lines, what has America's response been when other nations have tried to tell America something similar whether in regards to the American "civil war", the time of the "civil rights" movement, or others?

Why does America demand that Egypt or Libya must respect the "universal rights of the people" but not Pakistan or India? Why not Iran or China?

Why do so many Christians buy into this man-made doctrine of a "universal rights of the people"? Why do some Christians take it so far that it's either virtually elevated above Scripture or is elevated above Scripture? Why is this doctrine such a centerpiece of the "social gospel" crowd?

Love of money, they only have a form of godliness.

Don't be fooled, many professing Christians are living for money, not Christ, where their treasures are, that is where their hearts be too. Its not difficult to see where their hearts are.

[John81]

Someone supported the US when we declared independence from England and the people stood up to against the king who was oppressive and taxed the colonists without giving them a representative voice in the government. France supported us. The Dutch loaned us millions and millions of dollars to fund our war against England.

Should we not do the same for others when the people rise against their oppressive leader? You ask why not China? their people are not rising up. You cannot create any form of representative government if it does not rise up out of the people there. In Egypt, people are revolting to overthrow an oppressive regime, and we ought to support their efforts.

Why is internet access a "universal right?" because it empowers the people. If the government shuts it off and controls acces, it controls information and solidifies its power. It is not internet per se, but right to information and free speech.

What is the biblical support for how the Dutch or French reacted during the American Revolution? For the French and the Dutch, their support was about weakening England, not concern for Americans claiming they had some rights due them. Certainly they had no concern with what honoured Christ in making their decisions.

According to the American Founders, who received the aid of Franch et. al., America was to be a neutral nation, willing to trade with all, unwilling to ally with any and unwilling to take sides between disputing parties in or between other nations, beyond unofficially wishing some well.

Some Chinese have attempted to rise up and America sat on the sidelines, similar to how they did when the Chezcs did so after WWII trying to toss of the Soviets.

Where do we find a "universal right" for people to be "empowered" or to have a "right" to information and free speech? America herself has never fully followed this.

[JerryNumbers]

Someone supported the US when we declared independence from England and the people stood up to against the king who was oppressive and taxed the colonists without giving them a representative voice in the government. France supported us. The Dutch loaned us millions and millions of dollars to fund our war against England.

Should we not do the same for others when the people rise against their oppressive leader? You ask why not China? their people are not rising up. You cannot create any form of representative government if it does not rise up out of the people there. In Egypt, people are revolting to overthrow an oppressive regime, and we ought to support their efforts.

Why is internet access a "universal right?" because it empowers the people. If the government shuts it off and controls acces, it controls information and solidifies its power. It is not internet per se, but right to information and free speech.

When America fought against England for their independence, did those nations that stood with America do so with an ulterior motives?

[Guest]

Someone supported the US when we declared independence from England and the people stood up to against the king who was oppressive and taxed the colonists without giving them a representative voice in the government. France supported us. The Dutch loaned us millions and millions of dollars to fund our war against England.

Should we not do the same for others when the people rise against their oppressive leader? You ask why not China? their people are not rising up. You cannot create any form of representative government if it does not rise up out of the people there. In Egypt, people are revolting to overthrow an oppressive regime, and we ought to support their efforts.

Why is internet access a "universal right?" because it empowers the people. If the government shuts it off and controls acces, it controls information and solidifies its power. It is not internet per se, but right to information and free speech.

Yes, the colonies needed the internet to get their message out. The internet was used to garner support in the struggle for independence for what became the United States. They needed that internet, they needed that radio, they needed television. I forgot...I'm sorry. What's the problem? Don't you trust the liberal media to tell you about struggles for independence around the world?

Blood carries the day, not news papers, not radio, not television, and certainly not the internet. People died in the Colonies, people died in Egypt; real change requires the willingness to shed blood. Committment empowers the people.

[HappyChristian]

Just a thought here as to universal rights...

Did not the writers of the Declaration of Independence point out that rights come from God?

"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness." I would venture to say freedom of speech lies within the parameters of liberty, and certainly happiness. And I'd say that if internet service is available, people have a right to it (not free) and a right to not want their "governments" to shut it down or lock it just to keep them in oppression.

[no name joe]

Yes, the colonies needed the internet to get their message out. The internet was used to garner support in the struggle for independence for what became the United States. They needed that internet, they needed that radio, they needed television. I forgot...I'm sorry. What's the problem? Don't you trust the liberal media to tell you about struggles for independence around the world?

Blood carries the day, not news papers, not radio, not television, and certainly not the internet. People died in the Colonies, people died in Egypt; real change requires the willingness to shed blood. Committment empowers the people.

Stoppiong the free flow of infomrantion and blocking internet informaton or other news info to the people an assault to their rights as humans.. That would be like the governemnt 100% taking control of the internet and media and papers here. You can say waht you want to about the "liberal media," but here we have an incredible system of divergetn views. "Conservative media" controls the radio, and has outlets on Fox News.

WHere the government can break up a peaceful assembly and can prevent information, that is oppressive and is a violation of rights.

How can you not see that? I am amazed that Christians cannot see that it is good to support this change in Egypt. It is not feasible everywhere to do so, but where the people are pushing for change and it is feasible, we should support that.

Yes, there are ulterior motives in everything. The US unquestionably has an ulterior motive in EVERYTHING it does in the Middle East. Stability in the region is in our best interest. Bush did not invade Iraq solely to find WMDs or rid the region of a dictator. He did so because it is in our best interest to install a governemnt that will be an ally. WHere our interest and supporting a regime change where it oppresees the people coincides, we should undoubtedly act.

[no name joe]

Just a thought here as to universal rights...

Did not the writers of the Declaration of Independence point out that rights come from God?

"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness." I would venture to say freedom of speech lies within the parameters of liberty, and certainly happiness. And I'd say that if internet service is available, people have a right to it (not free) and a right to not want their "governments" to shut it down or lock it just to keep them in oppression.

Exactely. Not only is this in the Declaration of INdependence, but also our Bill of Rights.

If the government can control what information the people are allowed to access, then the governement can outlaw the Bible, if you want to bring all of this to a Christian perspective. They could also outlaw churches from meeting and assembling.

[HappyChristian]

Problem with the Egyptian situation, kind, is that Mubarek was pro-American. I agree that there are rights the people didn't have, and that is a shame. But they had more rights than other Arab nations.

On the day after Mubarek stepped down, there was a picture of smiling protesters. Women were smiling openly. I have to wonder how long that's going to remain to be. If the Muslim Brotherhood or another Islamic power gains control (which is likely to happen...just look at the cleric who had been exiled who has returned - ala Iran and the Ayatollah), those women won't be allowed to show their faces, even in protest.

Mubarek was also at least coldly friendly to Israel. This will most probably change...and we can see that with Iranian ships in the Suez...

[John81]

Just a thought here as to universal rights...

Did not the writers of the Declaration of Independence point out that rights come from God?

"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness." I would venture to say freedom of speech lies within the parameters of liberty, and certainly happiness. And I'd say that if internet service is available, people have a right to it (not free) and a right to not want their "governments" to shut it down or lock it just to keep them in oppression.

Actually they make the claim that such is the case but provide no proof. Nowhere in Scripture does God proclaim these "universal rights".

What God does proclaim is that all who reject Christ are condemned to hell. All who accept Christ are to become as slaves to Christ, casting off all our own wants, taking on the nature of Christ and pursuing the will of God.

God also commands that we submit ourselves to the rulers who are over us. The ONLY exception is if they command us to go directly against the Word of God. Even then, we are told to be prepared to pay the consequences and to do so with joy.

Christ promises that if we truly follow Him we WILL suffer prersecution. In our suffering persecution for the sake of Christ we are to count it all joy and be rejoicing.

How are Christians commanded to have better government? By prayer! Christians are commanded to pray for their leaders and to pray for peaceable conditions so we may live by the Word and spread the Gospel.

No promise of "universal rights", not statements that men are to have liberty, to be able to pursue happiness, to be guarenteed internet connections, to have free access to information, etc.

[trc123]

Stoppiong the free flow of infomrantion and blocking internet informaton or other news info to the people an assault to their rights as humans.. That would be like the governemnt 100% taking control of the internet and media and papers here. You can say waht you want to about the "liberal media," but here we have an incredible system of divergetn views. "Conservative media" controls the radio, and has outlets on Fox News.

WHere the government can break up a peaceful assembly and can prevent information, that is oppressive and is a violation of rights.

How can you not see that? I am amazed that Christians cannot see that it is good to support this change in Egypt. It is not feasible everywhere to do so, but where the people are pushing for change and it is feasible, we should support that.

Yes, there are ulterior motives in everything. The US unquestionably has an ulterior motive in EVERYTHING it does in the Middle East. Stability in the region is in our best interest. Bush did not invade Iraq solely to find WMDs or rid the region of a dictator. He did so because it is in our best interest to install a governemnt that will be an ally. WHere our interest and supporting a regime change where it oppresees the people coincides, we should undoubtedly act.

I don't see where anyone is not supporting the change in Egypt. I thought the thing being questioned is that the universal rights of people includes the right to Internet. Which I don't see as a right guaranteed (directly or indirectly) in the Scriptures or our nation's foundational documents of government and governance.