My Thoughts On The Glenn Beck Rally

Pages : 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 [14] 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23

JoeRedskin
09-03-2010, 08:49 AM
Specifically re: your point about inalienable rights, you might be interested to know that Jefferson originally wrote (http://www.princeton.edu/~tjpapers/declaration/declaration.html) "All men are created equal and independent. From that equal creation they derive rights inherent and inalienable." Doesn't sound quite as religious as "...all men are created equal; that they are endowed by their Creator with inherent and inalienable Rights..," does it? The Continental Congress changed the wording to emphasize "Creator." In my view, the difference being that in the original wording, it seems to point to the inherent rights of man as a natural being in and of himself, whereas the final wording indicates the rights as a "gift" from a benevolent god. What that tells me is that our government has been forced to pander to the religious since the very beginning.

Both the adopted statement and Jefferson's original statement (which is closer to the statement contained in George Mason's Declaration of Rights which Jefferson likely used as a template: Virginia Declaration of Rights - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Virginia_Declaration_of_Rights#Text)) are statements encapsulating the believe in "Natural Law" a concept which considered certain rights to be ordained and granted by the Creator. To assert that Jefferson meant anything other than that certain "natural" rights were divinely granted is to warp the historical context in which his statements (original and adopted) were written.

Natural law - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Natural_law#English_jurisprudence) (my emphasis).
Sir Edward Coke was the preeminent jurist of his time. As his recent editor has written, once Coke said that something was the law, almost everyone agreed. Coke's preeminence extended across the ocean: "For the American revolutionary leaders, 'law' meant Sir Edward Coke’s custom and right reason." Thomas Jefferson wrote to James Madison that before the Revolution, the first volume of Coke's Institutes of the Laws of England "was the universal elementary book of law students, and a sounder Whig never wrote, nor of profounder learning in the orthodox doctrines of the British constitution, or in what were called English liberties."

Coke defined law as "perfect reason, which commands those things that are proper and necessary and which prohibits contrary things.” For Coke, human nature determined the purpose of law; and law was superior to any one man's reason or will. Coke's discussion of natural law appears in his report of Calvin's Case (1608): "The law of nature is that which God at the time of creation of the nature of man infused into his heart, for his preservation and direction." In this case the judges found that “the ligeance or faith of the subject is due unto the King by the law of nature: secondly, that the law of nature is part of the law of England: thirdly, that the law of nature was before any judicial or municipal law: fourthly, that the law of nature is immutable.” To support these findings, the assembled judges (as reported by Coke, who was one of them) cited as authorities Aristotle, Cicero, and the Apostle Paul; as well as Bracton, Fortescue, and St. Germain.

And, just so we're clear as to Jefferson's beliefs in drafting the Declaration:

"Well aware that the opinions and belief of men depend not on their own will, but follow involuntarily the evidence proposed to their minds; that Almighty God hath created the mind free, and manifested his supreme will that free it shall remain by making it altogether insusceptible of restraint; that all attempts to influence it by temporal punishments, or burthens, or by civil incapacitations, tend only to beget habits of hypocrisy and meanness, and are a departure from the plan of the holy author of our religion . . . ."

-- "A Bill for Establishing Religious Freedom," Section I

"For in a warm climate, no man will labour for himself who can make another labour for him. This is so true, that of the proprietors of slaves a very small proportion indeed are ever seen to labor. And can the liberties of a nation be thought secure when we have removed their only firm basis, a conviction in the minds of the people that these liberties are the gift of God? That they are not to be violated but with his wrath? Indeed I tremble for my country when I reflect that God is just: that his justice cannot sleep for ever . . . ."

-- "Notes on the State of Virginia" (my emphasis)

Both quotes Jefferson -- Quotations on the Jefferson Memorial (http://www.monticello.org/reports/quotes/memorial.html)

As 24 of the 56 signers of the Declaration of Independence held seminary degrees, I would suggest that, rather than "pandering to religion", the Declaration's language reflects the deeply held beliefs of the signers that the natural rights of man were, in fact, a gift of God. Founding Fathers Quotes - Christian Quotes of the Founding Fathers (http://christianity.about.com/od/independenceday/a/foundingfathers.htm)

You may disagree with their beliefs and conclusions but to assert that they did not hold them is simply wrong.

firstdown
09-03-2010, 10:57 AM
Some girl is in our office with a screaming baby and its driving me nuts. If I go nuts will that be covered under OBama care? I'm guessing the baby is starving because the Rep. blocked some bill to keep babies from eating.

MTK
09-03-2010, 11:04 AM
You could probably file a stress claim under comp.

JoeRedskin
09-03-2010, 11:10 AM
It depends on the type of nut you turn into. If you turn into a right-wing Nazi terrorist then most likely not. If you turn into ACORN, yes.

If you turn into a pecan, well, then you'll just be made into a pie.

FRPLG
09-03-2010, 11:13 AM
Both the adopted statement and Jefferson's original statement (which is closer to the statement contained in George Mason's Declaration of Rights which Jefferson likely used as a template: Virginia Declaration of Rights - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Virginia_Declaration_of_Rights#Text)) are statements encapsulating the believe in "Natural Law" a concept which considered certain rights to be ordained and granted by the Creator. To assert that Jefferson meant anything other than that certain "natural" rights were divinely granted is to warp the historical context in which his statements (original and adopted) were written.

Natural law - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Natural_law#English_jurisprudence) (my emphasis).


And, just so we're clear as to Jefferson's beliefs in drafting the Declaration:

"Well aware that the opinions and belief of men depend not on their own will, but follow involuntarily the evidence proposed to their minds; that Almighty God hath created the mind free, and manifested his supreme will that free it shall remain by making it altogether insusceptible of restraint; that all attempts to influence it by temporal punishments, or burthens, or by civil incapacitations, tend only to beget habits of hypocrisy and meanness, and are a departure from the plan of the holy author of our religion . . . ."

-- "A Bill for Establishing Religious Freedom," Section I

"For in a warm climate, no man will labour for himself who can make another labour for him. This is so true, that of the proprietors of slaves a very small proportion indeed are ever seen to labor. And can the liberties of a nation be thought secure when we have removed their only firm basis, a conviction in the minds of the people that these liberties are the gift of God? That they are not to be violated but with his wrath? Indeed I tremble for my country when I reflect that God is just: that his justice cannot sleep for ever . . . ."

-- "Notes on the State of Virginia" (my emphasis)

Both quotes Jefferson -- Quotations on the Jefferson Memorial (http://www.monticello.org/reports/quotes/memorial.html)

As 24 of the 56 signers of the Declaration of Independence held seminary degrees, I would suggest that, rather than "pandering to religion", the Declaration's language reflects the deeply held beliefs of the signers that the natural rights of man were, in fact, a gift of God. Founding Fathers Quotes - Christian Quotes of the Founding Fathers (http://christianity.about.com/od/independenceday/a/foundingfathers.htm)

You may disagree with their beliefs and conclusions but to assert that they did not hold them is simply wrong.

You are officially more smarterized than me. Well done.

CRedskinsRule
09-03-2010, 11:18 AM
It depends on the type of nut you turn into. If you turn into a right-wing Nazi terrorist then most likely not. If you turn into ACORN, yes.

If you turn into a pecan, well, then you'll just be made into a pie.
Now if someone would just give a useful if meaningless Simpsons reference the checklist would be complete!

JoeRedskin
09-03-2010, 11:18 AM
You are officially more smarterized than me. Well done.

Thanks - I try to take a scientifical approach to things.

Beemnseven
09-03-2010, 11:52 AM
Seems to me that Jefferson and the rest of the drafters of the Declaration of Independence could very easily have substituted "Almighty God" for "our Creator" -- to eliminate any doubt.

The fact that they didn't has to account for the fact that they weren't as certain about the whole thing as modern day evangelicals would have us believe.

wolfeskins
09-03-2010, 12:02 PM
I dismiss insanity pretty readily. When someone gets up and starts claiming that we as a nation need to turn back to a mythological being in hopes of fixing real world problems... sorry, I don't need to listen to that nonsense. I wonder... if this were someone saying that the US needs to turn to Allah for guidance in order to restore honor (whatever the hell that even means), how would that work out? Buddha? Pastafarianism (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flying_Spaghetti_Monster)? Sorry, crazy is crazy. I don't pay attention to the guy on the train rambling about the end of the world and I likewise can't be bothered with an uneducated blowhard spouting equivalent drivel. The only reason it's even worthy of discussion is that there are at least 300,000 like minded lunatics.

so you think christians are insane lunatics? people like you are the reason this country is so screwed up.

Beemnseven
09-03-2010, 12:07 PM
Then we have to contend with the issue of the Treaty of Tripoli, signed into law by President John Adams, (many of whom consider to be among the most Puritanical of the Founders) which says...

Art. 11. As the Government of the United States of America is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion; as it has in itself no character of enmity against the laws, religion, or tranquillity, of Mussulmen; and, as the said States never entered into any war, or act of hostility against any Mahometan nation, it is declared by the parties, that no pretext arising from religious opinions, shall ever produce an interruption of the harmony existing between the two countries.

Seems pretty cut and dry to me ... much more, in fact, than the relatively vague "Creator" mention.

EZ Archive Ads Plugin for vBulletin Copyright 2006 Computer Help Forum