Justice does not require equality.
Yes, it does. A law which does not afford all men equal standing is unjust prima facie.
Scripture neither says nor demonstrates such a notion. The God of Justice will mete differing justices according to each man's deeds for whoever is judged by Him.
Scripture doesn’t speak of the need for antibiotics either. That’s a silly point. And God may mete out different punishment, but not justice, which is the standard for judgment and punishment.
Some men are born with more rights than others. It happens every day. My children have rights to my property and more favor from me than other children. Felons lose their rights to various civil liberities. Elected officials and judges have greater freedoms and rights than the governed.
You need a good government class…no, possessions are not rights. Property is not a right, though you have the right to own property. And felons are not born so.
People with enough money have a right to extensive judicial counsel more than a public defender would provide.
Now you’re confusing a right with ability. The ability to retain more effective counsel is not a right. The right would be to have counsel in the first place.
A prince in his father's kingdom, today as in Saudi Arabia, has far more rights than nonroyalty in his realm.
Probably true. And if so to the extent that it is so it is unjust.
By the way, God never declared that we have "Inalienable rights, that among these are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness."
As I fully set out by attribution and quotation…God never argued for democracy either. Do you want a monarchy? And how do you know that God, who according to Romans is the seat of governmental authority, didn't inspire Jefferson to write those very words which set a new course for human governing?
The existence of human inequality does not necessarily mean tyranny will occur.
Under the law it does. The moment you have inequality there you have injustice and that is a very real form of tyranny.
You might want to reconsider turning this issue related discussion into a personal exchange by referencing me personally with lame advice. Looking forward to helping any more conceptual or informational needs. Thanks.
Where did I write that? I don’t remember putting that in…I just read my post and I don’t see it. But if an exchange of ideas isn’t personal then you aren’t putting enough into it.
Please remember that the original issue of this thread was being "created" with unequal rights, and not the attainment of inequality by human effort. That is why I put that word in parentheses.
Right. And Jefferson didn’t believe that men ‘attained’ those rights by an act of man, but that each man was born with them, that other men through tyranny abrogated what was naturally the right of each of us, that these rights were given us by our creator. But I’d suggest that before we can discuss the validity of a proposition we need to agree on the terms we use. As of this moment your working definition of what constitutes a right for the purpose of discussion is, to be charitable, broad.
