| Forums: Religion: Is this Right Observed with out Prejudice? Has it ever been? |
| 7/19/2008 3:41:17 PM | Is this Right Observed with out Prejudice? Has it ever been? | | jrbogie
Red Bluff, CA
age: 59
| and i forgot to mention. on the subject of separation, i have numerouse supreme court as well as federal district court case histories at my fingertips as well. you don't think i'm making this up as i go along do you?
[Edited 7/19/2008 3:42:31 PM]
| | 7/19/2008 5:00:46 PM | Is this Right Observed with out Prejudice? Has it ever been? | | jrbogie
Red Bluff, CA
age: 59
| killed another thread. damn, do that allot.
| | 7/19/2008 5:01:46 PM | Is this Right Observed with out Prejudice? Has it ever been? | | 
curiousone2
Springfield, IL
age: 42
| hen in the Course of human events it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.
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, — That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security. — Such has been the patient sufferance of these Colonies; and such is now the necessity which constrains them to alter their former Systems of Government. The history of the present King of Great Britain is a history of repeated injuries and usurpations, all having in direct object the establishment of an absolute Tyranny over these States. To prove this, let Facts be submitted to a candid world.
Well you could have the entire constitution written on your arm, and it wouldn't help you find, the penumbra of the constitution which is
The declaration of Independence.
the declarations tells why they are breaking away, and what they intend to acheive by breaking away.
the constitution tells HOW they do it.
so the penumbra of the Inaleinable rights, lies in the penumbra of the law, which are
civil rights, derived, inalienable, from our creator.
| | 7/19/2008 5:03:30 PM | Is this Right Observed with out Prejudice? Has it ever been? | |
curiousone2
Springfield, IL
age: 42
| killed another thread. damn, do that allot.
NO you didn't I am still game.
| | 7/19/2008 6:06:42 PM | Is this Right Observed with out Prejudice? Has it ever been? | | 
classicsfan
Charlottetown, PE
age: 51
|
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.
I would argue this on the basis that they may have believed the rights came from a supernatural being, but that doesn't make it so. These rights were defined by the authors of the document.
| | 7/19/2008 6:46:38 PM | Is this Right Observed with out Prejudice? Has it ever been? | |
curiousone2
Springfield, IL
age: 42
|
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.
I would argue this on the basis that they may have believed the rights came from a supernatural being, but that doesn't make it so. These rights were defined by the authors of the document.
first of all theyw ere deists, they were not claiming a god, or any god.
they were saying it is inherent in human nature to suffer under tyrrany, but eventually if the pressure is NOT released, they Must rise up, and overthrow that government for one that will allow them Life, liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness. they claimed these right to be SELF evident, that all men are created equal,
If you have a brain, you can fight or die rather than be oppressed, how could anyone argue with that?? it is self evident. and it is the truth,
this them deciding that these are the things that force people to revolt, ultimately, and he names why they specifically did it.
but the point is inalienable, it means you cannot give it up except by death, it cannot be seperated from you. the right to be governed by a specific person.
this attitude is used against us all the time, when the people don't want to help other nations because they should overthrow their nation themselves. or we are policing.
we are rarely in agreement on where to draw that Line, but we KNOW that people can die rather than be governed by anyone.
| | 7/20/2008 5:10:15 AM | Is this Right Observed with out Prejudice? Has it ever been? | |
classicsfan
Charlottetown, PE
age: 51
|
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.
I would argue this on the basis that they may have believed the rights came from a supernatural being, but that doesn't make it so. These rights were defined by the authors of the document. first of all theyw ere deists, they were not claiming a god, or any god.
Deists they may have been, the concept of a deity is a supernatural concept.
they were saying it is inherent in human nature to suffer under tyrrany, but eventually if the pressure is NOT released, they Must rise up, and overthrow that government for one that will allow them Life, liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness. they claimed these right to be SELF evident, that all men are created equal,
Their definition of men meant white males.
If you have a brain, you can fight or die rather than be oppressed, how could anyone argue with that?? it is self evident. and it is the truth,
this them deciding that these are the things that force people to revolt, ultimately, and he names why they specifically did it.
but the point is inalienable, it means you cannot give it up except by death, it cannot be seperated from you. the right to be governed by a specific person.
this attitude is used against us all the time, when the people don't want to help other nations because they should overthrow their nation themselves. or we are policing.
we are rarely in agreement on where to draw that Line, but we KNOW that people can die rather than be governed by anyone.
The US constitution is a political document, written by political men. The items that are defined in that document were defined by those men at that particular time.
Ask the people of Zimbabwe, if they have the inalienable right to choose their leader.
A tyranny that is strong enough can last many generations.
| | 7/20/2008 9:15:57 AM | Is this Right Observed with out Prejudice? Has it ever been? | | skunkbreath
Saint James, MO
age: 89
| classics-,"Their definition of men meant white males."
History would tend to support that, but i wonder if that was a political concession to the majority who followed traditions of white male supremacy.
| | 7/20/2008 9:34:29 AM | Is this Right Observed with out Prejudice? Has it ever been? | | 
queenofhearts61
Seymour, IN
age: 62
| People can only be ruled if they allow it. There are always more of the people than there are of those enforcing the rules. The people have to cooperate or they can rebel, [the colonies of America for instance]. So Curious you are right about that, however how is it more right to teach all religions over one religion. No one should have to stand for being taught any religion if they do not want to. I do not think the constitution is perfect or it would have added FREEDOM FROM RELIGION to the constitution in the first amendment. I think you can not legislate faith either. The freedom of thought is the only freedom that can be guaranteed.
| | 7/20/2008 10:08:20 AM | Is this Right Observed with out Prejudice? Has it ever been? | |
classicsfan
Charlottetown, PE
age: 51
| classics-,"Their definition of men meant white males."
History would tend to support that, but i wonder if that was a political concession to the majority who followed traditions of white male supremacy.
Considering that at least some of the authors were slaveholders, and the emancipation of women was a long way off, it seems to me a reasonable assumption. Perhaps someone with access to their personal writings could shed more light on this.
| | 7/20/2008 12:38:43 PM | Is this Right Observed with out Prejudice? Has it ever been? | |
curiousone2
Springfield, IL
age: 42
| classics-,"Their definition of men meant white males."
History would tend to support that, but i wonder if that was a political concession to the majority who followed traditions of white male supremacy.
Considering that at least some of the authors were slaveholders, and the emancipation of women was a long way off, it seems to me a reasonable assumption. Perhaps someone with access to their personal writings could shed more light on this.
UMMM NO skunk, that isn't true.
Jefferson Intended to free the slaves right then, and had to compromise and slavery stayed. He also intended the pursuit not to be of happiness but property, and they made him change that as well.
They knew and understood equality as it is supposed to be, they just couldn't change society that fast, and it took another 75 years(?) to make it an issue drawn in the sand.
and the confederates started it, Not the north, when they abstained from the union.
and you KNOW this is true because it says IN the declaration of Independence, that In Order to form a more perfect union, or is the the preamble? anyway, they say the same thing. A MORE PERFECT UNION, that means we are moving toward an ideal. they built in a compass, and when we get off course every few generations it is there to guide us back.
It is divine, and perfect.
| | 7/20/2008 12:42:28 PM | Is this Right Observed with out Prejudice? Has it ever been? | |
curiousone2
Springfield, IL
age: 42
| People can only be ruled if they allow it. There are always more of the people than there are of those enforcing the rules. The people have to cooperate or they can rebel, [the colonies of America for instance]. So Curious you are right about that, however how is it more right to teach all religions over one religion. No one should have to stand for being taught any religion if they do not want to. I do not think the constitution is perfect or it would have added FREEDOM FROM RELIGION to the constitution in the first amendment. I think you can not legislate faith either. The freedom of thought is the only freedom that can be guaranteed.
well, I am NOT saying teach them as a faith,a s I have stated before.
but I am saying teach them that the muslims believe this, the Buddhists believe this, and the Hindus believe this, and then you can begin to understand why they behave the way they do.
It is why we educate ourselves about the rest of the world,
but too many of the wrong people have created false ideas about the different faiths.
we identify Christians with bible thumpers, and Muslims as " terrorists" because they are the ones that are most visible. they are an exception, rather than the rule,
so when you can educate people about the history of the faiths you can understand where they are coming from, and our roll in it, and how we can all work to help each other, and the world.
if we don't we will HAVE to.
|
|