Posted on 02/13/2015 7:43:29 AM PST by NKP_Vet
During a heated discussion over gay marriage, CNN morning Anchor Chris Cuomo opined that the unalienable rights endowed to all Americans do not come from God.
Cuomo was debating Alabama Chief Justice Roy Moore on the constitutionality of same-sex marriage. Near the end of the back-and-forth and after Moore argued that rights cannot be handed down by men, Cuomo blurted out:
“Our rights do not come from God, your honor, and you know that. They come from man... That’s your faith, that’s my faith, but that’s not our country. Our laws come from collective agreement and compromise.”
Maybe Mr. Cuomo flunked elementary civics. The opening sentence of the second paragraph of the Declaration of Independence clearly affirms:
“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.--That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed…”
It may be more convenient to Cuomo’s political philosophy that a select few are empowered to grant rights to the masses, but it certainly is not part of this country’s foundation.
What’s worse is Cuomo is advocating “collective” rights. He speaks as if every American right can simply be overturned at a whim simply because "times change." “Sure, freedom of speech was great in 1789, but we've evolved beyond that as a collective society.” This is a very dangerous slope on which to tread.
Maybe CNN will help their anchors learn American history on the network’s new game show. Chris Cuomo desperately needs the tutoring.
“I’ve always wondered what Atheists think about “our rights come from God”
This is not limited to atheists, it is how all Democrats feel. The only rights that you have are those that they decide to let you have. Otherwise, you belong to them.
“The Constitution and the Declaration of Independence are two different things. The latter should not be quoted when talking about law. It is not not a legal document and has no legal standing.”
You’ve attempted to make this point a couple of times now on this thread and while I understand the generality of it, I don’t understand the application of it to this subject.
The Declaration is just that, it is a declaration. It declared several things, and one among them was that our RIGHTS ARE NATURAL and were passed along to us by our CREATOR. Further, the US Constitution re-enforces the fact that some rights are natural and can not be infringed.
They are both related and perfectly worthy of inclusion in any discussion about this topic.
But ... I mentioned Atheists ... because I take them at their word that they don’t think there is such a thing as God. Okay ... it’s their belief (and I know a few atheists personally, but we haven’t talked about this subject). AND ... I do believe we have a few atheists here, and/or a few agnostics.
NOW ... I’m going to say that there are Atheists who do support our form of government and the U.S. Constitution. And they obviously know the Declaration of Independence, which establishes the idea of rights coming from God.
SO ... let’s say these FReepers, who are supporters of the U.S. Constitution and know that the Declaration of Independence says that ... what do they base the establishment of these rights on? They’re not going to say they come from God, since they (at least from their standpoint) know that God does not exist (I’m not saying that, because I think differently, but they’re saying that).
You can’t say ... as a result of their non-belief in God that they don’t support what the Declaration of Independence stands for and establishes, or that they don’t support the U.S. Constitution. And they’re not going to suddenly “believe in God” because the Declaration of Independence says so.
THEREFORE ... WHAT is their position?!
If you’re attributing the quote about the Constitution to me, you’ve got the wrong guy. That post was the first one I made in this thread.
Borges was the one who pointed out the difference, which doesn’t matter because of the very things you’ve said: that essentially, the Declaration of Independence is the founding document of all founding documents for the United States of America. It lays out the philosophy that was used when the Constitution was written.
I was answering MNnice’s “make liberal’s head explode” comment. It’s an extremely difficult thing to do, because of the rhetorical armor that the leftist mind is surrounded with. It’s practically impenetrable.
Daddy’s little boy ain’t too smart. What’s CNN next surprise... what son or daughter will be forced on viewers so bigs at CNN might get invited to cool Christmas parties?
Do you disagree with that statement? It has nothing to do with believing our rights come from G-d.
Too many people make the mistake of conflating the two documents as one general all purpose legal statement. It’s a failure of Civics classes and general education.
“If you’re attributing the quote about the Constitution to me, you’ve got the wrong guy. That post was the first one I made in this thread.”
Yes, I was miss attributing it to you. I apologize for my confusion and I apologize for potentially confusing other FReepers reading and posting to this thread.
Thank you for correcting my error and for copying the appropriate FRiend to my comment.
“It’s an extremely difficult thing to do, because of the rhetorical armor that the leftist mind is surrounded with. It’s practically impenetrable.”
Very true and I wholeheartedly agree!
Here, let me give you your answer again since you’re having a tough time with literacy and avoidance of pedantry:
[E]ssentially, the Declaration of Independence is the founding document of all founding documents for the United States of America. It lays out the philosophy that was used when the Constitution was written.
So to be pedantic as all hell, yes, you are correct. The Constitution does not mention God Himself. To be reasonably correct, however, the Constitution is the law as laid out using the Declaration as a philosophical basis. To try and say that they are not related is foolish at best, intellectually dishonest at worst.
I would imagine that for an Atheist it would be even MORE important to believe that their rights do not come from government, but are SELF evident. (For some reason I view atheists as being independent, “you can’t tell me what to do/believe, etc.”
But the key phrase to me is self evident. And if you believe in God - they are God given. If not - well, they just ARE.
Literacy is exactly what you’re arguing against. To those who care about such things, it’s annoying when people conflate two different documents with two different purposes. It’s no different than when people claim “Separation of Church and State” is in the Constitution. That phrase actually came from a letter written by Thomas Jefferson - the same guy who wrote the Declaration of Independence (neither of which are legally binding). The Federalist Papers have much more weight on Constitutional interpretation than the DOI.
Your purpose in pointing out that the Creator is not mentioned in the Constitution is... what, exactly?
The Constitution exists mainly for protection of our rights, codified in law.
Our rights come from where, exactly?
Did any other document in American history happen to mention where our rights, as codified in law by our Constitution, come from?
The Federalist Papers aren’t law either, by the way, so you’re “conflating” “documents” with “different purposes” by mentioning them.
What do the Federalist Papers say about the origin of our rights?
Stop being so thick, Poindexter.
I don’t think you have to believe in God to believe that mankind has certain inalienable rights. If you believe in evolution, would you perhaps believe there might also be something unique about human intelligence? The fact that our human ancestors believed in a higher power, god, or gods might have caused humans to develop a higher level of consciousness?
What about the principle of good and evil? How would an Atheist say that humans seem to have an innate sense of what is good or evil?
“That which has been given by God cannot be taken away by man.”
Wanna bet?
L
What about the principle of good and evil? How would an Atheist say that humans seem to have an innate sense of what is good or evil?
They say that we “Evolved to recognize” good vs. evil as a necessary construct among social groups.
The evolutionist should admit that we could have evolved in a different way, but we didn’t.
So, yes, mankind is unique but the laws of morality are subjective. This is a fundamental concept of our modern day liberals.
It is fundamentally, elitist.
Purposes of fact. The three biggest influences on the U.S. Constitution were the Code of Hammurabi, Manga Carta and English Common Law.
Purposes of fact. The three biggest influences on the U.S. Constitution were the Code of Hammurabi, Manga Carta and English Common Law.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Where did Hammurabi, the Archbishop of Cantebury in the 11th Century, and Blackstone say our rights originated?
I meant the 13th Century, apologies.
I wasn’t directing my response to you, but the issue. You were merely the latest one to quote that saying. Sorry if you took it personally.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.