Posted on 05/06/2010 5:51:40 PM PDT by Borges
She mentioned a couple of times that The Constitution talks about 'inalienable rights'. Conflating the Constitution with the DOI has to be one of the most irritable trends in contemporary civic life. Most people quote them interchangeably. Anyone else bothered by how common this is?
What ever DeVore is, his latest melt down is again proof, he is not Senator material.
I have no idea what the heck you are talking about. The only meltdown I see is you running interference for Palin’s horrific choice of Fiorina
Not to overlook each item in the (original) Bill o'Rights, which the author of the DOL is mostly responsible for having inserted into the Constitution when other Founders thought that the original document would suffice.
Palin is correct when stating that our Constitution does indeed grant the citizens of the U.S. inalienable rights, as defined in the DOL. She did not state that the phrase "inalienable rights" was to be found in the Constitution.
That stated, the two documents go hand in hand. Without the DOL, the Constitution would not have been created.
So, no, it bothered me none the least when she, or anyone else, speaks of 'inalienable rights' and our 'Constitution'.
Let’s hope ol’ Dunc sells more books than he received votes in the ‘08 GOP primaries.
You’ll still be defending Sybil when she joins the Romney 2012 as a special adviser
Just some thoughts here:
1. men are endowed (or provided, or given) by their Creator (note the absence of the word "God"!),
2. With certain unalienable (or not capable of being repudiated),
3. life (well, in the Declaration, this certainly takes care of any possibility of abortion IF - repeat IF one can prove that the Creator endowed that life at the moment of conception,
4. liberty (tho endowed by the Creator, it can be assumed that others may wish to take this liberty away from those endowed with it. One man's liberty is another man's challenge.),
5. and the pursuit of happiness (hmmmm...two words here need socially agreed upon definitions...."pursuit" and "happiness". It is to be assumed that the wealthy, the middle class, and the poor will have drastically and much opposed definitions for each of these.)
But again...just thoughts that come to mind in this once great land now dubbed the USSA (Union of the Socialist States of America).
But again...just thoughts that come to mind in this once great land now dubbed the USSA (Union of the Socialist States of America).
But again...just thoughts that come to mind in this once great land now dubbed the USSA (Union of the Socialist States of America).
You mentioned your thoughts, in regards to the Declaration of Independence and where our rights come from...
But, let me mention some thoughts too... as to why this is not as relevant (to some people) as it was before. And this pertains to FReepers that I've seen posting here.
I've noticed that those who don't believe in a Creator God, and/or that He directly created Adam and from Adam directly proceeded all of mankind and not through "evolution" -- those kinds of people and their "thoughts" tend to minimize the significance of a "Creator God". To them it's just "language" that doesn't mean anything -- other than -- those rights are "higher" than a government's ability to take them away.
BUT, the problem is -- if you simplly say it's just "language" (and nothing more) and that it simply means that these rights are "higher than a government" -- then you "hang it" on basically "nothing"... simply your "opinion".
That means, if opinion changes later on, then this statement will have literally no meaning at all.
HOWEVER, for those who know that there is a Creator God and who know that Adam was made by God's hands directly, at the time of Creation (as stated to us in Genesis) and know that it has nothing at all to do with the false theory of Evolution -- those people know that this statement is based on a "reality", an "existence" -- something "tangible" that is higher than any government -- and thus no "changing opinions can change "that fact". It's permanent and unchangeable, then -- under that understanding and under that worldview.
But, as I said, it's not even a "worldview" that all FReepers have. In fact, I doubt it's a worldview that a majority of FReepers have, according to what I've seen posted here.
In addition, I see many FReepers promote "conservative politics" but they say that the "Religious Right" should stay out of the GOP and stop interfering and turning it into something that promotes "religious viewpoints". These FReepers want all things of God to be totally left out of the GOP and they think that the Religious Right is causing the GOP to lose elections.
So, it's very questionable whether even a good portion of the conservatives view this "language" as any more than "mere language" and not on the basis of an "actual Creator God" who is actually involved directly in mankind's affairs and who is soon coming back to this earth and setting up His own world-wide government and ruling over all the nations of thw world, including the United States.
Are you of the opinion that those who wrote, edited, and finalized the Declaration would agree with you?
If so, upon what do you base this opinion? Or is it a belief of yours?
Indeed, many of the Framers of our Constitution were Deists—which is a far cry from Biblical literalists—were they not? Didn’t Jefferson famously cut and paste the words/teachings of Jesus from his bible and leave the rest behind?
The simple truth here is that the writers and editors of the Declaration had {vastly} different definitions for the word "Creator" and the word "God".
In the official document, the word Creator was used.
I'm not too sure about Jefferson cutting anything from his bible. I believe he was far too inclusive for that, but that's just a guess.
Are you of the opinion that those who wrote, edited, and finalized the Declaration would agree with you?
I guess that depends upon whether someone thinks that the founding fathers, who went through the process of getting the Declaration of Independence out and signed their names to it -- were working from a Christian foundation and Christian principles ... doncha know ...
And as Sarah Palin says -- they were working from that foundation, framework and understanding (this nation being founded on Christian principles and a Christian foudation) and as a certain and significant number of other FReepers say, too (although you do find plenty who disagree with the idea that this country was founded on a Christian foundation and Christian principles).
And it's because a "Christian foundation" and "Christian prniciples" have a "Creator God" which those founding fathers knew very well ... you see ... :-)
NOW..., if you are thinking that our "Creator God" is just a "euphemism" and/or just a phrase to make for a "high sounding phrase" for use in the Declaration of Independence (as some FReepers seem to think, too) and that it's only something useful to "maintain a viewpoint" that those rights are above state control, for purposes of trying to maintain a "defensible viewpoint" -- then perhaps you don't think that those founders were actually operating from the concept of a real and existent "Creator God" ... :-)
As far as it simply being a "mere belief" of mine, as opposed to what they actually thought -- from the accounts that I've read, from those writers who have gone back and dug up those details and quotes (and the materials and books that they've put out) -- it's very obvious by seeing what they said and wrote, consistently, over and over again -- that they indeed did believe in the Creator God of the Bible and knew that He existed, as a real entity. Otherwise, there would be "no force" to those words, for some "fairy tale" being. They intended to give those words the "force of reality" and they did so, very well...
Read it? It’s my blueprint for life. FOB
“IMHO Gov Palin may not be the GOP nominee if history repeats itself, unless the times we live in do not follow conventional rules. I think it will be someone else.”
The Republican establishment thinks Mitt Romney is the leading frontrunner...... it’s the grassroots Repblicans that love Sarah......so where does that leave us?
Its Mitt whose star will fade in Republican establishment circles.....I think Sarah will still carry the day for herself....
Let me posit this: if the writers/editors of the Declaration had meant to use your term, "Creator God", then they would have, as they were well spoken men and said (and wrote) exactly what they meant.
They didn't use the term(s) "Creator God"; they used the term "Creator". Only.
Micheal Jackson sold 100+ million records. Hillary’s book sold over a million in its first 4 weeks. And Ellen and Oprah are the two most successful TV talk shows. And Obama got more votes than Palin’s hero.
They knew it was the same thing ... a lot of people today, in our present-day culture don’t know it’s the same thing ...
I mean, back then, to say “Creator” was saying God. And to say “God” was referring to the Creator... Back then, to say “Creator God” would be like having the “hiccups” ... LOL ... Today, it not like the hiccups, but gets a “double-take” from some people, because they didn’t realize that anyone believed that anymore ... :-)
Today, “God” could be a “force” (Let the force be with you... LOL ...) in some people’s minds, perhaps a nirvana state of mind, or could be “Allah” (Satan in the disguise of God), could be an ordinary man who becomes “God” and has multiple wives and becomes a “god” in his own universe (yes, there are people who believe that ... LOL ...), it could be something “wiccan” where it’s simply a series of “spells” that you cast and something on the “white side” of magic, doncha know, or it could be a “force of nature” a cosmic dice roller, called Evolution, the “god of chance”, of the “survival of the fittest” [but how that could ever ‘grant rights” I have no idea] — and you can name a whole bunch of “gods” — as that’s the present-day culture we are in.
If you thought all that, back then — you would probably be an outcast and/or committed to some institution, or you would have to go out into the wilderness and trap beavers and be away from people or something of the like ... :-)
Ahhhh....."and therein lies the rub."
As deists, they did not (Jefferson and Franklin both state this in other writings) believe "Creator" and "God" were the same....not at all.
Your assertion (above) is false.
And lest you be mislead....they were indeed all christians....but like most early Americans...had {very} different viewpoints on the christian faith (Lutherans, Deists, Reformed Dutch, Friends, Catholics, Protestants, and others).
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.