"Cuomo’s mixing apples with oranges. Laws come from “collective agreement and compromise” and vary from jurisdiction to jurisdiction.

Rights are universal and come from God or, if you’d like, from the natural order of things.

"If Cuomo wants to argue the point further, I suggest he take it up with Thomas Jefferson. I guarantee he’ll lose that debate".

That's exactly what he said and what he meant. "if you’d like, from the natural order of things".

You seem to have a problem with our Bill of Rights with your comment about it being the third testament of the Bible.

That's a progressive spin. The Founders were, with few exceptions, Christians through and through, and for Christians of their time and understanding, that meant they respected other faiths even if they believed those who held those faiths were wrong. Read the writings of the Founders instead of their later biographies and you'll find the Christian God at the center of their philosophy.

Thanks for the quotes

yes i know who his family is but that does not matter, it also does not matter if he believes it or not, what matters is that he said it.

As an Objectivist, I have concluded that all human knowledge originates with the evidence of the senses (sight, smell, hearing, touching, and tasting). Only after I've sensed something can I apply my natural ability to Reason and Aristotle's logic to determine the characteristics of that which I have sensed. To my mind, this is the only way to knowledge
To assert that my Rights come from God would necessitate me having sensed this God which I have never experienced. Hence I conclude that this explanation for my Rights is incorrect.
To assert that my Rights come from Man would necessitate proof that Plato's philosopher-king could actually exist and be capable of determining the Rights of all other men. I have seen no such proof. Hence I conclude this explanation is incorrect.
Since our Rights can only come from God, Man, or from our Nature as Humans, and the first two being incorrect, the only possibility left is the third.

CNN is only slightly more coherent than is MS-LSD

oh, don't get me started on a tree fell in the forest. LOL

Correct. Given that anything subjective is based on a value comparison and value is derived based on perceived utility which can only come from rational thought, any subjective inference is therefore a product of the presence of rational thought.

To try to split hairs between consciousness and sentience to me is ridiculous.

Equally God can neither be proven or disproven making the arguement futile. The perils of rights coming from man (right to healthcare being the latest) is well stated. A person may or may not fear God depending on their beliefs but I for one have a greater fear of our government. Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness is an abstract whose origins are debated but it is these principles that have given me the life that I live. And I will defend it - period.

That may well be and I have no quarrel with that belief. But it's not what he was adressing as far as I could tell. Too many people carry on about the founding documents of the USA as if they were the Third Testament of the Bible. I think he was right in making that point.

Interesting point -- I thought his "... or, if you'd like .." was indicative of his understanding that God or nature as a starting point is a premise and in the latter case these rights arise naturally. I select nature as it seems to me to be the simpler (I have only to consider nature, not God and nature). In the case of nature I think we use objective reasoning to deduce these same fundamental rights. It would be interesting to discuss these matters with the Justice.

If I may. Truly inspired by God.

the ability to feel, perceive, or experience subjectively.

Isn't that the weakness. When people realize there is nothing above mans authority they become free to act upon whim, as is most common, or reason, which is not common enough. Either way the freedom to act becomes the good and without a proper philosophic base the whim becomes the course of action. Those who still "believe" must lose control or resort to the use of force.

I think you are being generous to Judge Moore. He does not think rights are based in reason, he thinks they are based in Christian faith, which is an inherent contradiction.

Fortunately not many watch CNN; Unfortunately, idiocy is seldom simple.

NO it was because most of the founders were Deists. They has little use for a Christian, Jewish, islamic, etc. god.

Look up the definition. What you may mean is consciousness but not sentience.

You trust in something that does not exist, can not be defined, cannot be perceived and cannot be understood. Brilliant and what will you say to the Islamic terrorist who does not believe in Natural Rights? Or the Communist who thinks your only right is to serve the state? "I believe your wrong, I have faith you are wrong."

Actually, in the context of the argument that he is having, Cuomo is more correct than Moore.

The exact language of the bill of rights comes from man and from collective agreement. The underlying rights are inalienable. Thus, in the context of an argument over the definition of marriage and the application of the "equal protection" clause of the Constitution - the whole thing comes from man - not god. And can be redefined by man in any way that our society sees fit. So long as it does not violate one of the inalienable rights.

Agreed, but if you were alone, you also wouldn't need to worry about the perpetuation of rights to the next generation either ;) It's a variant on the tree falling in a forest question.

Justice Moore shows that he sees to the core of the issue with his statement: "Rights are universal and come from God or, if you’d like, from the natural order of things." just as Thomas Jefferson did: " ... endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, ..." (a most remarkable insight especially considering Jefferson's era). Mr. Cuomo is espousing the position of bully's, thugs, tyrants, and dictators.

Fortunately, CNN's audience has diminished from a torrent to a trickle. Cuomo, whether cleverly or stupidly is just mouthing the Progressive line, and what else would you expect? There are at least 20 or 30 people in the Gulch that I know of, who could demolish him in a debate and probably a thousand more that I don't know of. But it will never happen, because you have to be irrational to be a politician in this current climate. The trick is to vote for the least insane one.

caveat: if you were alone you wouldn't need to define rights. :) Cuomo comes from a long line of liberal POS's.

it was good to hear cuomo state on national tv that rights come not from god. maybe his comments will be further publicized on all of the other networks and other forms of news media.