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?
The story is that he cut out all of the quotes of Jesus from the bible. Here’s wikipedia’s stab at it:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jefferson_Bible
One learns something new everyday!
One can only imagine what he would have done with a PC and word processor!!!
Thanks for the info!
The “they” is indicative of the founders and those who supported the new creation of the United States and the culture of the society in which everyone lived... and ... as is true in all societies, not every last single person believe in a particular cultural distinctive, like that... but — it was the cultural distinctive, the founding fathers operated on the basis of that understanding and wrote accordingly, and it was recognized across the board, and it is a fact that the U.S. was founded on the principles and foundation and belief from Christianity, just like Sarah Palin talks about (as we see on the news)... whether you want to believe that or not.
It’s also apparent that the vast numbers that support Sarah Palin (and hear those same kinds of statements from her, on this issue) also have that same understanding for this country and for the founding fathers and for the culture in which they lived.
I’m afraid you’re not going to re-write “history” for them and/or for Sarah Palin. And I’m betting she’s going to be “running” on that very same idea that you don’t seem to like ... :-)
And..., that’s so common among those today, who live in a different culture where God is redefined as something other than the Creator God of the Bible — as a “force” or an inanimate process of chance, or all sorts of other ideas — to try and redefine our founding fathers and their understanding and belief as something akin to the wide-range of unrecognizable beliefs today (unrecognizable to any back then...).
Michael Jackson isn’t being touted to seek the GOP nomination in a couple of years. If both Palin and Hunter do, the latter is going to see the same result, probably worse, than he did in ‘08.
The shine is already off your celebrity. Sybil ain’t even gonna run, toots.
Whoa....hold your horses there pardner!
In our little discussion, never once have I implied or stated directly that I "did not believe" that the US was founded on the principles of christianity.
My beliefs on this matter are of no import; history and fact are; therefore, you are correct.
That said, the writers/editors of the Declaration did use the term "Creator"...and ONLY the term Creator. You see, while christians all, they had differing beliefs as to exactly what to believe.....as do present day "born again-ers", Baptists, Lutherans, Protestants, Catholics, etc.
One never has to "re-write" history; it is already there. And I defy you (or S. Palin, tho I'm certain she has far more important things to do) to provide one single example from any of the published papers of the writers/editors of the Declaration using your term of "Creator God".
Moreover, whether or not I "like the idea" of the writers/editors of the Declaration as christian, is again of no import. What is true is true.
However, you must be careful to separate fact from belief; something I've noticed that some christians have a very difficult time in doing.
It’s really very simple... the only ones who are denying this are the non-Christians... because the Christians of today and of then know exactly that God and Creator are the same thing and saying “Creator God” would have been redundant back then, but in today’s culture it is not redundant, but actually “defining”...
It’s “defining” for today — but it was “known” back then....
As I said, anyone who is or was a Christian (which the culture was and from which those founding fathers and those who supported them came from) — knew exactly that “Creator” and “God” are equal and the very same thing. It’s only “today” that it’s not equal and thus, to say it is actually “defining”.
It would have been bad language back then to have said it. It would be like (back then) if you said “Creator God” — you would get a stare and maybe (if they had the word back then) a “Duhhh!” ... yeah! LOL ....
It’s “defining” for today — but it was “known” back then....(yet another assertion of your personal belief.)
As I said, anyone who is or was a Christian (which the culture was and from which those founding fathers and those who supported them came from) — knew exactly that “Creator” and “God” are equal and the very same thing.(Yikes...redundant - see my comment from above)
It’s only “today” that it’s not equal and thus, to say it is actually “defining”.
It would have been bad language back then to have said it. It would be like (back then) if you said “Creator God” (you are now "creating" examples and statements of fact that are both inaccurate and historically unsound in order to lend weight to your beliefs.)
Truely, I have no problem at all with your beliefs and/or opinions...if they were stated as such. But I take umbrage with your efforts to convince that your beliefs/opinions are facts when indeed they are not.
I find this to be a familiar tactic (intended or implied) of "believers". That is to say, once belief takes the place of, or substitutes for, fact...then the discussion must end for there can be no discourse, no learning, no logical or factual conversation.
I wish you luck....you no longer need respond.
1. Article VI - "but no religious Test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any Office or public Trust under the United States."
2. Article VII - "Year of our Lord"
3. Amendment I - Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof;
That said, there is one bridging phrase to the Declaration of Independence that is in the Constitution, which can be seen as a link to "unalienable rights."
PreambleWe the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.
Note the use of the phrase "Blessings of Liberty." They didn't say "liberty," they said "blessings of liberty." Why?
In the Declaration of Independence, the Founders said:
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.
By this language, is it possible that Founders meant the Constitution to establish a government that secured the blessing of the unalienable right to Liberty?
As a side note, when they spoke of "securing the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our posterity," wouldn't those referred to as "our posterity" be the unborn children who were also "blessed" with the right to Liberty, and the other unalienable rights in the Declaration of Independence?
-PJ
Did Thomas Jefferson’s use of the word “inalienable” in three separate drafts of the Declaration irritate you?
Yes it did. And it still does. LOL.
LOL, sorry!”
I’ve seen fairly intelligent people use your instead of you’re, so I understand why he haphazardly changed one letter. It still irritates me.
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.