God Given Rights

First off, there IS a God. I know that to be factual and true. It's not the subject of this thread and only a few people can relate to what I just said. It's complicated; you wouldn't understand and it has nothing to do with being smart, etc. I'll leave it at that.

America was founded on Christian principles. It was not founded as a theocracy nor was it intended to be. That should have been as far as we should have had to go. But, you non-believers don't get it. This thread is not about the existence of a God. There is a thread on this board about that and, although I haven't visited that thread, I'd be willing to bet you guys are getting your rear ends kicked on that one worse than you've gotten the beat down here.

We spent a great deal of time early on in this thread arguing over the words of Thomas Jefferson. For the purposes of this part of the discussion, let me repeat a few words of Jefferson:

"But it does me no injury for my neighbor to say there are twenty gods or no God. It neither picks my pocket nor breaks my leg."

So, while the quote is more often than not used by atheists, let's look at that quote for a moment. How are you injured by what people believed in the creation of our form of government? Is anyone demanding that you believe in God simply because you live in a system inspired by Christian thought?

I need not prove a God because secular history proves the reality of Jesus Christ (and whatever other names you might know him as.) Jesus confirmed the earlier accounts of God and believers accept that. It doesn't matter whether you accept that part or not. It MIGHT be relevant if believing were required to be a citizen in the United States. It isn't. The followers of the message of Christ built a nation on the principles contained within the Bible. You don't even have to be a Christian to embrace and believe in the principles. Nobody requires you to do so.

With all due respect though, rest assured there is a God. You can stomp your feet, put your fingers in your ears, and think that the repetition of the words there is no God will somehow make it come true. It won't. A military officer once told me, "there is no such thing as an atheist in a combat situation." If you ever have the experience of facing death and live to tell about it, you will gain a different perspective.

 

You basically cant be taken seriously after saying that. No one can logically argue that. Your understanding what is "factual and true" is clearly different to the actual meaning of the words.

 

And you, sir, have been factually proven to be wrong at every instance. I don't know who told you that you have a monopoly on the meaning of words and legal interpretations, but they lied to you. The posters here are capable of looking up the various links by us and making their own determination. Your unnecessary commentary about what you think about me is distracting, irrelevant and it presumes that other posters are not capable of determining what is and is not true, factual and on point.

Enough with the personal attacks. If you have something, spit it out.

 

Unfortunately you evidently dont understand what the word 'fact' means.

There's this thing, you may have heard of it. Its called a dictionary. It was invented a few hundred years ago. Its quite handy; quite... definitive.

Additionally, the principles of statutory construction in common law systems is generally well known; follow the text as written firstly with the meaning of individual words, then consider their immediate context and then overall statutory purpose as stated in the law. This is followed by analysis of case precedent and construction of other judgments and then by the meaning of the document's writers as determined by speeches, drafts etc as well as other relevant legislation, statutory definitions and so on.

Well no, my pointing out, for example, that you rewrote arguments, is relevant to those seeking to contest your assertions. It is not a personal attack to point out what you did. It is only a personal attack/ad hominem if I for example, began to attack you as a person on an unrelated note irrelevant to your argument.

Well, I have a few critical points regarding the OP.

To put it bluntly, God never gave men rights, only commandments.

To answer the OP's 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.

Ethical principles regarding secular law and human rights were founded long before the Abrahamic god was invented and it is from these earlier traditions the logic of the Founder's the constitution they created may be most firmly sourced, eclipsed only by the British common law. Practically, the Founders' greatest and most adhered to source of rights was the British (more specifically English) common law - specifically the British Constitution.

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.

"God" was conceptualized as the source of the universe and the character of mankind (which is also not once declared in the Constitution) - 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.

 

I'll check in from time to time; however I will not read Megadeath's posts. I told him I will not read endless attacks and quoting / commenting on my every sentence in threads.

Every objection that Megadeath can make has been asked and answered with facts. Nothing can change that.

America was founded on Christian principles. Let me draw you an analogy:

Where I work, our company introduced Total Quality Management training as taught by the Japanese. The Japanese get credit for the program, but it was an American that first taught it to the Japanese. So, are scores of people training Americans "lying" by calling TQM Japanese principles? Of course not.

Christ was a living person that was here on this earth, teaching a doctrine that was consistent in the writings of what we call the Bible. Those are facts. If you believe in the collection of lessons taught by Christ and you believe... and accept Christ, you are a Christian. End of story. Period.

I don't have to prove that there is a God. Again, another analogy:

Worldwide there are thousands of cases all over the world where people are convicted of a crime when there is no physical body to prove a crime has been committed. It is the jury that determines the facts of the case. So, if there is no body, how was murder proven? That calls for other facts, right?

That is the same, identical way early in this thread's progression that we proved, beyond a reasonable doubt, that America was founded on Christian principles. Now, a certain poster cannot accept that. Maybe he thinks that, as a lone juror, AFTER the facts have been established, he can disprove what has already been proven. There is a thread for that, but our poster is on the wrong thread over here.

I don't have to prove the existence of God in order to make the factual declaration that America was founded on Christian principles. Another link I want to refer everyone to states:

"Alfred the Great codified biblical law throughout his kingdom. He became known as the "Father of English common law."

http://liberty-virtue-independence.blogspot.com/2008/12/foundation-of-english-common-law.html

Our STATUTORY laws are based on the English Common Law.

Now, if anyone here (other than those who claimed to have read the thread already) is too lazy to read this thread and wants me to list the posts wherein we've discussed this stuff already, either PM me or ask in a short response on this and I'll give you the posts - which contain additional links.

Additional information:

http://www.thefederalistpapers.org/founding-father-influences

 

The word clearly is 'Creator'. That is what ever one wants it to be for them. So yes, readers do know.

 

Unfortunately we are talking about US law and its notion of rights, not America.

Unfortunately a law artificially creates a measurement of assessment of guilt. This can be a particular level, in the case of 'beyond a reasonable doubt' or it may require no evidence as in statutes of strict liability. Unfortunately for you, your analogy fails once again as law IS NOT the same as rules of logic engaged in during a debate where the requirement of evidence is called the 'burden of proof.' It is scientific and logical. No proof exists of God that is by any means sufficient to establish sufficient evidence of a God's existence. You may have a belief he exists, but it is simply that - a belief. And it is well known, although you seem to struggle with this distinction, a belief DOES NOT create a fact.

First correct statement you have made on this thread.

What an abismal attempt at addressing my points. The British Constitution and the common law heritage that isnpired the American revolution, began with the Magna Carta, which was signed by King John. BEFORE King John, the Founders did not look to Christian rulers in England like Alfred the Great. In fact these early leaders were seen as increasingly weak as they allowed ancient Saxon custom to be corrupted such that the Normans were able of invading and taking control. It is in the ANCIENT Saxon law that the Founders sought to identify the source of British constitutional principle - not religion. They conceptualised the British nation as one originating from a communitarian society of English (ie Saxon) forest dwellers who maintained an impeccable system of noble, white, pagan, Saxon democracy. This fact has been widely accepted throughout mainstream history on the subject from past to present - from John Fiske to Gordon Wood and Bernard Bailyn. These are all conservative historians and NONE of them rank "Christian principles", "the Bible" or "God" as sources of revolutionary thinking that formed the Constitution.

Colonial society was a Christian society with many adherents to Christian principles, including the Founding Fathers. HOWEVER the Constitution is a GODLESS constitution based on BRITISH COMMON LAW and ENLIGHTENMENT philosophy - not religious conviction.

 

I'm going to repeat something here and maybe Megadeath will read this sentence if none other:

I will not read nor respond to posts that quote and comment on my every sentence in a previous post.

A counter response would not be read by other posters. It's too long, too boring and little more than a whizzing contest.

America was founded on Christian principles. Even our leaders have acknowledged that fact. Ronald Reagan signed Proclamation 5018. May I quote a few sentences:

"Of the many influences that have shaped the United States of America into a distinctive Nation and people, none may be said to be more fundamental and enduring than the Bible.

...Many of our greatest national leaders-among them Presidents Washington, Jackson, Lincoln, and Wilson—have recognized the influence of the Bible On our country's development. The plainspoken Andrew Jackson referred to the Bible as no less than "the rock on which our Republic rests." Today our beloved America and, indeed, the world, is facing a decade of enormous challenge. As a people we may well be tested as we have seldom, if ever, been tested before. We will need resources of spirit even more than resources of technology, education, and armaments. There could be no more fitting moment than now to reflect with gratitude, humility, and urgency upon the wisdom revealed to us in the writing that Abraham Lincoln called "the best gift God has ever given to man ... But for it we could not know right from wrong."

http://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/ws/?pid=40728

On this thread the nonbelievers said we could not find a God mentioned in the Declaration of Independence. We did. They said there was no mention of our God in the Constitution. We proved them wrong on that count as well. The atheists tried to claim the founding fathers were all atheists, or at best, a few deists among them. That theory fell apart when we proved that all but maybe two of the early state constitutions had provisions requiring political office holders to be believers in God.

All of this has been unequivocally proven in this thread.

 

Which has absolutely nothing with the thread topic and 'God given rights'.

 

They had to presuppose there was a Creator, Divine Providence, etc. in order to believe in a God.

 

They also had to presuppose that every other person may have a different Creator than the one they may have a belief in. And didn't want to impose their very own.
Hence they chose to not use God.

 

Does everything have to be a referendum with whether or not there is a God? Of course there is a God. And the signers of the Declaration of Independence acknowledged same. Keep up. We've already covered this. Don't become like some other people that want to keep restarting the same subject matter already covered. Did too... Did not... Did too...

Read the thread.

 

You are the only one who keeps bringing it up.
If the founders wanted God give rights, they would have stated it clearly.
No reason to read the thread. For you they come from God, for others it is nature, for others it is earth, for others it is the universe. Whatever one wants to believe as their creator.
You don't get to pick for everyone.

 

I have never claimed to have the ability or right to pick anything for anyone. It seems that you want to misrepresent my position. In each and every time I have commented on the Declaration of Independence (be it this thread or any other) I have clearly stated, with respect to the term Creator "whomever you deem that to be." Read the thread, sir. It is a consistent position.

Nobody is forcing you to believe in a God. At the same time, the colonists were of a Christian heritage and they built their government around the Bible. From the FIRST governing document of the colonies through the early state constitutions we have made the truth abundantly clear for anyone that wants to engage in an honest discussion.

The undisputed and irrefutable facts have been presented. I won't keep repeating them and I have no intention of allowing you the privilege say things about me nor the facts that are not true. Your side cannot make a case on the thread dealing with whether or not there is a God - which is irrelevant to this thread so you see me as easy pickings since I'm not going to engage in a separate topic on this thread.

America was founded on Christian principles.

"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.-"

 

It is not at all clear that the philosophy that spawned our DoI was based upon a Christian God. Hume certainly was no Christian and he more than anyone influenced the founders. But it is true that most of the Western world at that time were Christians. But does that mean anything today that is relevant or important except as a historical artifact of the times? Not in my opinion. The God that existed in 1790 in the eyes of the world no longer exists except within fundamentalist sects. We know too much now for that God to breathe.

 

You keep saying this but where exactly in the Constitution is any thought unique to the Bible? If indeed religion played a huge role in the creation of our founding documents, why not include specific references? You must remember one thing when covering this era. Our founders were very highly educated in the classical tradition. This meant reading Latin or Greek, studying Ceasar, Cicero, Aurelius, Plato, Aristotle along with Aquinas, Hume, Locke, Adam Smith and so on. It was a special time for humanity which is why it is called the "Enlightenment". Why was it enlightening? Because they awoke from a thousand year love affair with Plato and Aristotle by understanding the enormous implications of Copernicus, Galileo and Newton.

 

Thank you. Then this proves the thread is not correct in stating we have 'God given rights'.
Then there needs to be no more discussion. For the OP isn't about what the founders principles are/were. It's about every human having 'God given rights'. Which you agree is false for all humanity.

 

What does the Bible say about forming a government? What elements from the Bible are found in the state or US constitutions? What uniquely Christian principles were America founded on?

 

Aye, but the most quoted person during the founding era was John Locke.

 

Have you bothered to read this thread? I don't agree to a damn thing you've said. Unalienable Rights belong to all men. Never have I ever... in this entire thread and at any time in my life have I said anything to the contrary.

 

You have asked one of the most intelligent questions of this thread. At the moment, however, I cannot do it justice, but I WILL come back and begin a list when I have sufficient time. I'll even PM you because this question is one that ought to be posed to every person on this board who has claimed they support the notion that America was founded on Christian principles. Maybe if we moved in that direction, it would test both the knowledge and the faith of those who consider themselves to be believers.

 

I don't think you know what you've said. The thread, says so in the title also, 'God given rights'. And tried to put out false claims that is what is our rights. And can't prove it.
And what I said to you was, no more reason to debate this, for you also say there are no 'God given rights'.
We agree. End of discussion.

unalienable rights are another discussion and thread completely.

 

God given Rights are the first principle of our Republic. If America could be summed up in one word, it would be Liberty.

"Now the Lord is that Spirit: and where the Spirit of the Lord is, there is liberty." II Corinthians 3:17[/I]"

Used in that context, I will rely on Noah Webster, one of the founding fathers, to give us the meaning as the founders understood the term. So, from Noah Webster's 1828 Dictionary of the English Language:

"...consists in the power of acting as one sees fit, without any restraint or control, except from the laws of nature."

Many times some Christians would misinterpret or misapply Romans chapter 13 so as to be ruled over by tyrants, making this subject difficult. But, our forefathers mulled over various interpretations and applications and the reason we ever separated from foreign rule was when the founders contemplated this:

"Stand fast therefore in the liberty wherewith Christ hath made us free, and be not entangled again with the yoke of bondage." Galatians 5: 1

Liberty is the starting point of this discussion. It is THE fundamental principle of the Declaration of Independence. And how did the founders respond to all of this?

"A Prince whose character is thus marked by every act which may define a Tyrant, is unfit to be the ruler of a free people." (an excerpt from the Declaration of Independence)

I'll have more installments.

 

A lot of ideas converged in the DOE & US Constitution, but the Bible was not one of them. That was the height of the Age of Reason, when reason was the primary source of authority and legitimacy. They rejected authority based on tradition. The founding fathers were looking forward, not backward.

 

Asked and answered, but I'll do this one more time. If you cannot read the thread, you might be trying to make an uphill argument.

According to the Declaration of Independence:

"And for the support of this Declaration, with a firm reliance on the protection of divine Providence, we mutually pledge to each other our Lives, our Fortunes and our sacred Honor."

Instead of you and I B.S.ing each other, let's simply see HOW that terminology was used by one of the men who was actually there and SIGNED THE DECLARATION OF INDEPENDENCE:

"It becomes a people publicly to acknowledge the over-ruling hand of Divine Providence and their dependence upon the Supreme Being as their Creator and Merciful Preserver . . . and with becoming humility and sincere repentance to supplicate the pardon that we may obtain forgiveness through the merits and mediation of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ." Samuel Huntington

Source: A Proclamation for a Day of Fasting, Prayer and Humiliation, March 9, 1791, from a proclamation in our possession, Evans #23284.

Shall we try another? Here is more from another man who signed the Declaration of Independence:

"I do not believe that the Constitution was the offspring of inspiration, but I am as satisfied that it is as much the work of a Divine Providence as any of the miracles recorded in the Old and New Testament.

...[T]he only means of establishing and perpetuating our republican forms of government is the universal education of our youth in the principles of Christianity by means of the Bible." Benjamin Rush

Source: http://www.wallbuilders.com/LIBissuesArticles.asp?id=8755

We keep having this discussion and your side keeps losing. Now, I have a serious question and must say that you've been asked and answered. We have to move along and my next post is back to the poster that wanted something other than the whizzing contest the non-believers keep wanting to dabble in.