God Given Rights

Aren't you trying to change the subject? Now, in order to have an opinion, you expect people to abide by a set of rules that you seemed to have pulled from - God knows where. Unless the people can prove you your standards, then they have not proven anything to you; therefore, they are wrong and you are always right. Doesn't that about sum it up?

In the final analysis, if you were in charge, nobody could have any opinion other than yours. Doesn't that pretty well cover it?

You cannot disprove that there is a God. You don't like the facts presented, but disbelief does not disprove anything. OTOH, if others look at the evidence and come to the conclusion that there IS a God, then who are you to pass judgment on others and claim that they are wrong? Two people see the same evidence and one is swayed while the other is not. What makes you right and everyone else wrong?

 

I'm still puzzled. Just because Patriot News does not provide you with evidence you find credible, then you get to say what is relevant, true or real????? Isn't that about the size of this discussion?

Just because America was founded on Christian principles - which is an irrefutable fact, then you think that imposes a duty on believers to prove there is a God?

 

NONE of the elements that made our government an advancement came from religion. They ALL came from secular advances in governance.

Separation of powers, a constitution, enumerated rights, etc., etc. Claiming these for Christianity is nonsense.

In fact, in some cases it is just the opposite. That is, the Bible shows a foundation of enumerated DUTIES, not rights.

And, in others the Bible (Paul, for example) promotes the idea that God selects our leaders and it's up to us to suck it up.

Tell me the name of an average citizen who was mentioned specifically in the Bible and who voted.

 

Ah yes the usual bleating of "You don't understand" when everything else has been shown to be a failure and you have nowhere else to hide.

 

I think you make some valid points and I agree that American (as with citizens generally around the world with respect to their own legal institutions and history) ought to know more. However I wish to make some critical points.

To put it bluntly, where do America's founding documents say God, specifically, gave man rights?

To answer your rather circular question, "by what right do we proclaim such rights?", the rights espoused by the Founders were sourced in what is now called generally the philosophy of "natural law" or "natural rights theory", which extends from humanity's ability to reason. More practically their greatest and most adhered to source was the British (more specifically English) common law. More generally, their conception of morality, rights based law and the nature of state based power came from philosophers such as Locke, Montesquieu, Machiavelli and Hobbes.

"God" was conceptualized as the source of the universe and the character of mankind (which is also not once declared in the Constitution or Declaration) - not politics. The closest thing to religious influence they had was the amalgamation of splintered community traditions and the rhetoric of preachers who drew on the work of late renaissance reformers (Luther, Calvin, Wesley etc) who interpreted the Bible as suited them. These were often community stake holders who has to be managed, bartered with and controlled to further the revolutionary cause - they were not forces of guidance and instruction outside of (minimal) personal encouragement. Take for example the experience of Benjamin Rush and his religiously inspired fight against slavery which was almost entirely ignored by the founders.

The law of America is rooted in British common law and 18th century philosophy - NOT appeals to a God, the existence or even acknowledgement of whom is neither mandated or required for the project the founders pursued. Keep in mind the most influential thinkers of the revolution either worked or were trained in the law; Madison, Mason, Jefferson, Adams, Jay etc. Their legal and political inspirations are sourced in the traditions of the Magna Carta, the Bill of Rights of 1689 (ie the British Constitution) and the colonial charters and precedents, alongside the works of influential and historical jurists and activists such as Coke, Blackstone and Lilburne. God and the Bible factor in no more than folk heroes and local poetry in this formula.


Sir Edward Coke


Sir William Blackstone


John Lilburne aka "Freeborn John"

Additionally, the Founders weren't very devout. The Founders were almost entirely deists NOT theists, the latter being sadly what most Americans Christians are today. They were far less religious than the more politically active Christian conservatives of today, as was colonial society more generally. I needn't mention the adultery of the likes of Franklin and Jefferson to prove this point or the freedom of abortion procedures and the high rate of pregnant single women and stds, particularly on the frontier.

Finally, I wish to correct an initial error you make in your OP. America is exceptional I agree, but "American exceptionalism" is a tragic farce - in fact its that kind of nonsensical sloganeering that has created the lack of understanding amongst the American public (not to mention the government) which you describe, ie hubris.

 

What principles was America founded upon that are specifically/exclusively Christian and cannot be sourced from enlightenment philosophy?

 

Nope, try reading the OP and then use some logic, what does "God given rights" mean, your opinion is yours to have and believe as you wish, your beliefs are not what is being discussed it is the erroneous absolute assertion of the OP which btw the OP author can provide no evidence to support except that the founding principles of the USA were a set of beliefs based on another set of beliefs that some people decided were right and wrote down ergo these "God given rights" were created by man.

The OP does not just state an opinion it states an absolute, unless you can show in that OP where the author says it is an opinion ... Care to try?

Your further attempts at evasion are childish, attempting as you are to place the emphasis on me instead of addressing the argument. Classic theist evasion.

 

Your entire premise is a lie in that it equates the creator with God. Our rights are not grated by God they are granted by our creator. They are not synonymous.

 

Yes, our forefathers DID use the terminology Creator as a synonym to God.

 

We keep coming back to the same, identical starting point. A set of facts are brought before the both of us. You choose to believe something not in line with what was proven. I looked at the links of Patriot News. You got one meaning and I got another.

In the eyes of believers, the origin of Liberty was firmly established in the precepts of the Bible. You rely on the works of other men to draw another conclusion. You haven't convinced me on your position that there is no God. Outside of the opinions of mortals, like yourself, you have nothing that would lead me to believe your position is any better than that of Patriot News.

 

Synonym, metaphor, allegory. It still isnt the same word. Creator is not God. Creator is Creator. Could be a test tube.

 

Please define what you mean by "Liberty."

 

Jesus (and the rest of the bible) informs us of our duties, not our rights.

The bible is OK with slavery. The bible accepted the rule of Rome, when Rome was killing Christians for their beliefs, with Paul stating that God chose those leaders - including "Give unto Caesar", etc.

The liberty god gave was the liberty to live in service to God and man, to die in service, to look forward to an eternal afterlife.

I'm not sure where you could be headed with your comments. I like many of the Christian sentiments, but your twist on the Bible as being related to our advances in government is something for which I detect no actual support.

 

Ah, but you leave out the phylogentic DNA that naturally dictates our behaviors. Another realm of nature to consider. Our notion of justice comes from that.

 

Our government has been infiltrated by entities that do not mete our natural justice. It is roman justice.

It is an ideal often violated by our government and roman justice. They violate the ideal.

And sometimes, it is justified.

The infiltrated American government does not obey the constitution, so yes. And not many others have a mandate to observe natural laws or ideals that might create a more peaceful and prosperous society.

It is a legal right and an ideal. Neither should be relinquished or diminished in their potential value to our true advancement.

 

Well, when you finally address the topic, I'll be glad to respond.

 

http://www.politicalforum.com/showthread.php?t=440724&page=66&p=1065884929#post1065884929

 

I hear this point being make often for what purpose I don't know. I don't believe
it to be true or for the most part have not seen any evidence that it is in the least
bit true. It's my understanding that the founders were mostly Christians and very
devoutly so. I don't know why it is important for people to make this association.

So, for some people it is important to cast aspersions on the founders, and then
by association on America and Americans in general. Some people have that
kind of negative disposition. Some people have to put down others as a means
of making themselves feel superior.

- - - Updated - - -

I'll respectfully disagree.

 

Well, deists believe God does not physically interact with the world whereas theists do, that's the difference. This is important because the founders wanted a secular government - one in which religious custom did not found law, rather reason and sensible, limited conceptions of government.
Granted on the point of devotion this is subjective so perhaps we'll have to agree to disagree on that point but as I said practices like abortion were not worried about and these facts stand out.

Ok but I havent done that. If anything the Founders warned against hubris. We should continue that tradition.

Sure but that is neither my intention nor, I believe, the effect of my statement.

Can you please address the other points I have made. They are far more crucial to your OP.

 

I find what you said about the founders, America, and Americans demeaning
and insulting.

Pride and envy can make some people jealous. I missed out on those warnings
about hubris.

I will address those other points in another response later. I don't have time to
do it now.

 

Why/how?

I'll assume that's a joke and hope we're on the same page.

Ok well I'll wait then.

 

See, here's the thing; if you rely on a book written decades after alleged events, through various translations from the original texts, using word of mouth recollections from uneducated and superstitious Bronze Age folk then that, in itself, is the sort of 'evidence' that would be laughed out of a court of law today.
Evidence has to be provable in order for it to be called 'evidence'. 'Because I say so' or 'it says in this book...' is emphatically not evidence of anything but is merely subjective conviction. That shouldn't be puzzling for anyone.
Nobody has a duty to provide evidence of the existence of 'gods' nor have I suggested that they do, but as none has been shown for over 2000 years I feel I have every right to be sceptical when none is still forthcoming.

 

It's even more absurd when a representative of the 'god' of love, compassion and forgiveness reads some stuff from a bible before a convicted killer is led off to be roasted or gassed in a horrific death of mediaeval barbarity...

 

Imagine for a moment as well....that said court of law had multiple witnesses testifying opposing versions of the truth making the claim that only their interpretation was accurate. Would ANY of the testimony be accepted into evidence?

 

Of course all of that is false. Earlier in this thread I did prove that the Bible addresses Rights, Freedoms and of course, Liberty. I'm not sure what is to be gained by having that whizzing contest yet again. You'd think once the non-believers were schooled in what the Bible is about once, they would leave it at that.
A mod saw it fit to ban me over publishing the truth. No thank you, guys. I'll be content to question your beliefs in your own infallibility.