Was Religious Freedom Meant to Apply Equally to Foreign Cultures?

[supsalemgr]

and this is where I do not understand.   Why do only citizens of a certain geographical area only have rights?   Why are American citizens the only ones to have unalienable rights?   Why doesn't the concept of inalienable rights extend across the whole globe?

Why does the creator endow some people with these unalienable rights but not others?  Why does citizenship matter of a particular country that lies within certain geographical boarders matter?

"Why doesn't the concept of inalienable rights extend across the whole globe?"

Because most of the world is governed by dictators or despots in some form. That is the brilliance of our founding fathers and the Constitution. The result has been the most free and successful country in the history of the world. However, we have too many citizens who do not appreciate what we have. Many of these are all too willing to forfeit their freedom for false security.

[cubedemon]

No, the rights enumerated in our Constitution do not apply to all nations of the Earth.

In fact they aren't even meant to apply to non-citizen's within the jurisdiction of the U.S. government either.

Let alone non-citizen's under the jurisdiction of say the English Queen/Parliament.

Also, while the Justice maybe correct. I tend to find that the simplest answer is usually the right one.

And the simplest answer for why the framers put a first amendment in the Constitution is this.

In the day of the framers, not only did they know, how a government that is not constrained as ours is by the first amendment.

Can lead to abuse of the citizenry by that government. They lived it, and saw it quite literally up close and personal.

In fact, speech, in this case it was political speech, IS one of the very reasons cited for fighting the Revolutionary war in the first place.

To me, it only makes sense then, that later on, after the war. When it was time to frame our own government.

The framers would frame our Constitution in such a way, as to try and prevent the fledgeling new U.S. government from engaging in the very same sort of abuse, as that perpetuated on the colonies by King George and the parliament of that day.

Supsalemgr,  I think you misunderstood my question.   It is true that there are a number of dictators across this planet who do usurp other people's rights.  Not what I was talking about.

Look at the first two sentences that daidalos says.   Unless I'm misunderstanding what daidalos is saying it doesn't seem like he believe that any rights that are endowed to us by our creator in the USA is endowed to those in the rest of the world.  Why?   Why does one group of people have inalienable rights that are endowed by our creator while another group does not?   What makes us worthy of these inalienable rights that others do not have?   I don't follow this line of thinking because it's inconsistent.    I am extremely confused.

[supsalemgr]

Supsalemgr,  I think you misunderstood my question.   It is true that there are a number of dictators across this planet who do usurp other people's rights.  Not what I was talking about.

Look at the first two sentences that daidalos says.   Unless I'm misunderstanding what daidalos is saying it doesn't seem like he believe that any rights that are endowed to us by our creator in the USA is endowed to those in the rest of the world.  Why?   Why does one group of people have inalienable rights that are endowed by our creator while another group does not?   What makes us worthy of these inalienable rights that others do not have?   I don't follow this line of thinking because it's inconsistent.    I am extremely confused.

I think you are parsing words. I do not disagree that all men should have inalienable rights, however, only the US enumerates this as part of our laws. Now, our Constitution should apply only to citizens of the US and not to illegals, but that is a different subject.

[cubedemon]

I think you are parsing words. I do not disagree that all men should have inalienable rights, however, only the US enumerates this as part of our laws. Now, our Constitution should apply only to citizens of the US and not to illegals, but that is a different subject.

Can you give some specific examples as to what you mean?   What should apply to illegals and what should not?   For example, does the right to life apply to an illegal?  Is a citizen or the government of the US allowed to kill an illegal willy nilly?    Are there any basic rights that should apply to them or no? 

[BPman]

Simply because natives had no interest in being further subjugated by a govt that had destroyed their way of life.

No, it had to do with attitudes towards the Indians at that time. Many veterans of the Indian wars and the citizenry did not approve of them, thinking them heathen savages. I can understand that and won't try to judge them by modern standards as that is patently unfair & subjective. People are products of the age which within they live.

[SalemCat]

The vast majority of US Troops who raped and murdered Native Americans were former Union Soldiers who had recently honed their "skills" on their fellow citizens who were unfortunate enough to live South of the Mason Dixon Line.

Thanks "Honest Abe".

[BPman]

The vast majority of US Troops who raped and murdered Native Americans were former Union Soldiers who had recently honed their "skills" on their fellow citizens who were unfortunate enough to live South of the Mason Dixon Line.

Thanks "Honest Abe".

You mean Southerners who chose treason to maintain slavery, right? 

[supsalemgr]

Can you give some specific examples as to what you mean?   What should apply to illegals and what should not?   For example, does the right to life apply to an illegal?  Is a citizen or the government of the US allowed to kill an illegal willy nilly?    Are there any basic rights that should apply to them or no?

If a person is not here legally they are "illegal" and not entitled to the same rights as a citizen. Pure and simple. Anybody who is here should abide by the laws of the country. we try to make this too complicated and it is not.

[cubedemon]

If a person is not here legally they are "illegal" and not entitled to the same rights as a citizen. Pure and simple.

Anybody who is here should abide by the laws of the country. we try to make this too complicated and it is not.

You said that illegals are not entitled to the same rights as a citizen.   That implies that they do have some rights but less rights than the citizen.    Unless I misread and misunderstood the whole thing, I thought it was said that the illegals had no rights.   Do illegals at least have 1 or greater rights or do they have 0 rights?

If illegals have 1 or greater amount of rights out of the total possible can you specifically state what rights illegals do have vs. what they do not have?   

You said anybody who is here should abide by the laws of the country.  I mostly agree but I do have some issues with this concept.

a.   What if the laws conflict with each other.  Example:   The speed limit on the expressway says 55 MPH.   The flow of traffic at a certain point in time is 70 MPH.   It is illegal to impede the flow of traffic as well.  To follow one law would be to break another at times.  There would be no possible way to follow the law at times in this case.   So, what is the correct thing to do?

b.  There were laws that were broken during the civil rights movement because they unjust.   Can one break a law that is unjust and is one obligated to break that particular law if the law is unjust. 

c.  What if one had to break the law to save someone's life?   For example, let's say I'm driving along and I pass by a military base.   Maybe I'm walking to get stuff from a gas station.  Let's say I see a groundskeeper who was choking and/or having a seizure.  I climb the fence to save this person's life.  Yes, I broke the law by trespassing on a military base which is federal property.   Why wouldn't I be right to break the law in this case? 

To me, things are not so simple and are extremely complex.

[walkstall]

The vast majority of US Troops who raped and murdered Native Americans were former Union Soldiers who had recently honed their "skills" on their fellow citizens who were unfortunate enough to live South of the Mason Dixon Line.

Thanks "Honest Abe".

You mean Southerners who chose treason to maintain slavery, right? 

Take it to the History Board gentleman.  As the war between the North and South will live on for ever.  Depending on what side of the Mason Dixon Line you live.

[supsalemgr]

You said that illegals are not entitled to the same rights as a citizen.   That implies that they do have some rights but less rights than the citizen.    Unless I misread and misunderstood the whole thing, I thought it was said that the illegals had no rights.   Do illegals at least have 1 or greater rights or do they have 0 rights?

They are here at their own risk. They should have no legal rights.

If illegals have 1 or greater amount of rights out of the total possible can you specifically state what rights illegals do have vs. what they do not have?

In my view, they have a right to life unless they place someone else in a life threatening situation. 

You said anybody who is here should abide by the laws of the country.  I mostly agree but I do have some issues with this concept.

a.   What if the laws conflict with each other.  Example:   The speed limit on the expressway says 55 MPH.   The flow of traffic at a certain point in time is 70 MPH.   It is illegal to impede the flow of traffic as well.  To follow one law would be to break another at times.  There would be no possible way to follow the law at times in this case.   So, what is the correct thing to do?

Common sense tells us they will not be stopped. Prime example: I-285 in Atlanta.

b.  There were laws that were broken during the civil rights movement because they unjust.   Can one break a law that is unjust and is one obligated to break that particular law if the law is unjust.

They are still breaking the law.

c.  What if one had to break the law to save someone's life?   For example, let's say I'm driving along and I pass by a military base.   Maybe I'm walking to get stuff from a gas station.  Let's say I see a groundskeeper who was choking and/or having a seizure.  I climb the fence to save this person's life.  Yes, I broke the law by trespassing on a military base which is federal property.   Why wouldn't I be right to break the law in this case?

Like a citizen, they are doing the right thing. However, that would not prevent them from being deported if they are here illegal.

To me, things are not so simple and are extremely complex.

True, but once again you are parsing words.

[cubedemon]

Supsalemgr, I re-looked at some of the stuff I have said in this topic and I think I know what I may be doing wrong.   When you mean that I'm parsing words do you mean that I'm looking at individual sentences and taking them out of the context of the topic being discussed and responding to them without the proper context?   

[supsalemgr]

Supsalemgr, I re-looked at some of the stuff I have said in this topic and I think I know what I may be doing wrong.   When you mean that I'm parsing words do you mean that I'm looking at individual sentences and taking them out of the context of the topic being discussed and responding to them without the proper context?

That is one way of putting it. I am inclined to think it is more of taking something that is fairly simple and over analyzing to the point the subject becomes very complex.

[cubedemon]

That is one way of putting it. I am inclined to think it is more of taking something that is fairly simple and over analyzing to the point the subject becomes very complex.

It is a real problem that I have. I can confirm it because I've had leftists and people from various backgrounds tell me the same thing.   

[supsalemgr]

It is a real problem that I have. I can confirm it because I've had leftists and people from various backgrounds tell me the same thing.

Recognition and acknowledgement is the first step to overcoming your situation. Good luck.