Guest Post by Robert Bronsdon (Hollywood Rob)
I want to start off by saying that I do not want to try and stand on the tracks in front of the freight train that is Xrugger’s writing. I am not trying to oppose his arguments and while at some times it may appear that I oppose what he is saying, in general that is not the case. But in the matter of human rights springing from gods divine will, I must offer an alternative. I raise this in the discussion because I am pretty sure that to make the contention that one’s human rights come from god, is to open oneself up to attack by those who do not believe in your god. They might be godless heathens from your own land or believers in another god from across the sea but it does not matter. If you contend that your rights come from god all that is required is for your opponent to point out that their beliefs have triumphed over your beliefs so your rights, which only came from your god after all, no longer apply.
It is my sincere desire to provide readers of this site with the best unbiased information available, and a forum where it can be discussed openly, as our Founders intended. But it is not easy nor inexpensive to do so, especially when those who wish to prevent us from making the truth known, attack us without mercy on all fronts on a daily basis. So each time you visit the site, I would ask that you consider the value that you receive and have received from The Burning Platform and the community of which you are a vital part. I can't do it all alone, and I need your help and support to keep it alive. Please consider contributing an amount commensurate to the value that you receive from this site and community, or even by becoming a sustaining supporter through periodic contributions. [Burning Platform LLC - PO Box 1520 Kulpsville, PA 19443] or Paypal
-----------------------------------------------------
To donate via Stripe, click here.
-----------------------------------------------------
Use promo code ILMF2, and save up to 66% on all MyPillow purchases. (The Burning Platform benefits when you use this promo code.)
So to suggest that you believe that your rights are god given may seem to you to be unassailable, in fact, the basis for your rights are only as strong as the numbers within your society who believe in the god that you believe in. In other words, your rights can not come from an external source. They can only come from the belief system in which you live. You have rights because you believe that you have rights. If you lose confidence in your rights then you no longer have them. If you lack the strength of your convictions then the rights that you claim come from your god can be taken from you.
Islam teaches that women have no rights. The women believe in the religion so they accept that they have no rights. The men have no rights either but they have more rights than the women do. They believe in their religion so they believe that they have certain rights; apparently some of these rights involve young boys and girls. The point is that Islam is different from Christianity and this leads to a difference in the assumed rights that people have and eventually to conflict over whose rights are correct. It is this conflict over which set of rights is self evident that fuels the current invasion of Europe. The mohammedan does not accept your god given rights. In fact, it is very likely that most of the world does not accept your god given rights.
Christianity might teach that you have rights. I don’t know the faith well enough to demonstrate that it does. But to express the argument that these rights flow from the Christian god because some of the writers were Christian ignores the words written on the page. Where in Christian doctrine does one find that the right to freely assemble is guaranteed? How about the right to a free press? In fact, even the right to believe in the religion of your choice is not a tenant that one could find in the Christian faith. Just ask the Lutherans. For sure, Christianity has nothing to say about the right to bear arms. The writers of the bible did not even know that arms would exist. Can you find any mention in the bible pertaining to the quartering of soldiers in a civilian’s house? I know of none. The list goes on and I need not belabor the point. None of the rights delineated in the Bill of Rights has anything to do with any religion, and certainly not with the Christian religion. But for completeness, let’s list the rest of them:
Amendment 4. The right to be secure in your persons and property.
Amendment 5. The right to due process.
Amendment 6. The right to a speedy trial with a council.
Amendment 7. The right to a trial by a jury if the amount exceeds $20.
Amendment 8. The right to not have excessive bail or fines.
Amendment 9. The rights enumerated to you do not exclude other rights without specification.
Amendment 10. The rights not delegated to the federal government are to be held by the states or the people.
Not a one of these rights have any relationship whatsoever to anything related to any religion.
My contention is that this is a good thing. By divorcing the rights enumerated in the Bill of Rights from any religious connection, the writers managed to codify the rights of the citizens regardless of their faith. In other words, these rights do not flow from one divinity, but are rather rights that citizens of this country find to be the ones that they, through their own efforts, have secured and enumerated for themselves. These are the rights that these men wanted for themselves. Not the rights that their god gave to them.
And this serendipitous bit if prescience has placed us here in the United States of America in the enviable position of having the right to defend our rights against those who would take them from us. The second amendment provides for the weapons that are necessary to defend the first amendment. The writers knew from the get go that having the freedom to assemble peaceably meant nothing without the threat of being free to enforce the will of that assembly. They realized straight away that having the freedom to practice your religion as you see fit means nothing without the ability to defend yourself against those who do not believe what you believe. They appear for all the world to have been fully aware that the rights listed in the Bill of Rights sprung not from some divine gift, but rather from the sweat and blood of countless men and women who were willing to fight for their rights.
And here is where we get to the crux of the matter. If these rights that we are discussing here are not handed down from god to Moses on stone tablets, and only represent the rights that we want to have, how can we claim that these rights are valid? Where does the validity flow from? I claim that these rights flow from my desire for rights as a citizen and the gun in my hand and I claim that I need no greater validity, but, in addition, that the original Amendments as written didn’t need any further validity either. We have these rights because we took these rights. Well I didn’t actually take them but my great great grandfather took them and I stand with him and all of the rest of those who chose to stand in defense of our rights. I make this choice not because of a belief in the divine, but rather because of a belief in the rights. The rights are not divine. The rights are the rights. My rights. Those who would try and take them from me will face exactly the same thing that King George faced and for exactly the same reason and it won’t be because god said that I could have these rights. I said that I could have these rights. You said that we could have these rights.
Now we have to see if we are strong enough to defend these rights because in the end, no matter which god you believe in, it will fall to you to stand in the field and do the fighting. It is very unlikely that your god with his mighty sword of flames is likely to come to smite your enemy for you. The smiting is yours to do. Either you find your balls and stand up for your rights or you lose them to some soy boy from Florida or a billion Muslims from the Middle East. Your choice.
I’m completely for women’s rights, the right to: laundry, ironing, house cleaning, grocery shopping, making meals, doing dishes, pleasing us guys. Rights are a great thing.
Now that folks was awesome!
Thanks Hollywood,
Yours in Odin,
Other Rob..
P.S.
I Offer This Not as a Rebuttal. Good One!
I plan on using that gratuitously when dealing with Malcolm Riberio..
Then we can be…
[img
[/img]
They believe ‘little people’ live in boulders. They build roads around large stones, rather than move them.
Just makes sense, when you think about it… 🙂
here’s one for you heathens–
wtf!
Here is a better one..
Good points. If the foundation of ‘natural rights’ is a subjective belief in a God, then science, knowledge and reason will eventually (arguably already) undermine and destroy that foundation. When that occurs, where will those whose support for liberty was based on faith or superstition stand? The only ‘natural right’ is to self ownership, described by the founding fathers as life, liberty and the freedom to pursue one’s own happiness. The rights delineated in the Bill of Rights are not natural, but legal rights established to protect natural rights. This is an important distinction.
The author’s premise that the “Bill of Rights” diminishes the importance of inherent rights is wrong. The “Bill of Rights” was included, because there would be those who, in future generations, might be amenable to “modifying” or even “negating or abolishing” our “natural rights”. Hence, the “Bill of Rights” was included in our Constitution.
Our rights may not depend on a “Creator”, bur are “natural rights” which are automatically inferred as a condition of being human…
People never read or pay attention to it, or even know it exists, but the preamble to the Bill of Rights makes it clear that it puts further restrictions and limitations on the government.
The statement of it being further restrictions is an acknowledgement that the Constitution is itself a restriction on the powers and rights that were given to the government by the people who created it.
Could you post a link to the “Preamble to The Bill of Rights”.
“I claim that these rights flow from my desire for rights as a citizen and the gun in my hand and I claim that I need no greater validity.”
That’s a potential recipe for utter societal chaos.
And the senseless death or imprisonment of the person(s) making the argument.
Not true Stucky. The fact that I have rights that I am responsible for maintaining does not infer chaos. True, if someone wants to take those rights from me, that could lead to chaos, but as long as we are willing to stand for our rights, as we see them, then the only way to take them from us is for us to step aside. Those who would have us give up our rights are hoping that we will give up our rights. They are too cowardly to actually confront us and demand that we give up our rights.
Sorry Rob, I think you wiffed here. If we acknowledge an exogenous source, ie, the same power that created the universe and human life, we look to a source that transcends all human opinion. If we go with your thinking, it becomes a struggle of nearly infinite vying human ideas. I bow to God….no man.
In both your and Rob’s view of the world, it is what people believe that matters more than anything, even the existence of God. After all, God might not be there. Whether he is or isn’t there, belief in God IS there, and it is belief in transcendence that makes people behave a certain way. Rob’s point is that belief matters, regardless of what is true, and that’s a good thing, because God might not be there. I’m not telling though. If some of you people lost your faith in God you’d go nuts.
Well … you desire your rights, whatever they might be …. and all you need is that desire PLUS a gun.
I try to imagine 320 other million holding an identical view, and all I see is chaos.
You won’t get identical, but you might work up to similar.
I don’t particularly care what Catholics believe about God. I REALLY don’t care what Jews believe about God. I’m not sure I care what most Protestants believe about God.
But if they allow (tolerate) my beliefs about God (which I mostly don’t share) then we can be similar, and get along, more or less.
If they allow (tolerate) my beliefs about the Second Amendment then we might get along.
But if they don’t allow (tolerate) my beliefs about God (as being different from theirs) and try to take away my Second Amendment rights (in order to force their beliefs on me) then we ain’t gonna get along. Not one bit.
“Armed societies are polite societies” – R. A. Heinlein. Most folks in the Wild West were polite, as an armed impoliteness was short-lived, usually at the hands of a posse of like-minded (and like-armed) individuals. Would you call someone an ass to their face if they had a .45 strapped on their hip?
Would you kill someone just for calling you an ass, or would it take perhaps a bit more to end their lives, if you valued your own?
I’ve missed you Stucky and am pleased to see you back if only for an occasional comment! Hope all is manageable in your world?
Thanks, Arosa.
My life now is more or less a clusterfuck. My libtard seester plays a significant role in that. I’ll just leave it at that for now.
Sweet Jesus. Securing our Rights without God is like trying to secure a foundation on desert sands (or California mud). Saying science undermines religion is pointing out the obvious that everything gets undermined by better knowledge, even science itself. Religious Luddites never do God a favor clinging to ignorant myths and superstitions; they are in fact driving today’s more science educated youth to bite the Devils Apples. God is the Father of Mathematics & Science; He has nothing but Pride in His creation as long as it it used to advance His Glory and goodness and not Satan’s (as is the situation with Congress, Illuminati, Islam, Jesuits, Hollywood, MSM, CERN, DARPA, NASA, Monsanto, Dow, CDC, NSA, FEMA, UN IPCC, etc).
Where and how does Matthew 24:13 fit into your thinking?
I guess He’s saying simply if you stay faithful through all the Tribulations, you will be saved (ie, go to Heaven).
Here here! Got to brush up on my Catholic authors. There are so many inspired and reasoned sources to quote, if I only had the time and energy.
You are confusing ‘Civil Rights’ which are granted under the law by our Constitution with those ‘inalienable rights’ Jefferson noted came not from any government but from ‘The Creator’.
At the most fundamental level no ‘right’ can exist where it imposes a duty on another human being for your ‘right’ then becomes another’s obligation.
Thus there can be no ‘right’ to healthcare or housing or etc. because to do so would require a duty upon another to provide it. If we are all born with the right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness as Jefferson said, any system that obligates one citizen to provide for another is a breach of that right to ‘liberty’ to live as we wish.
This is not to say that governments cannot suborn our natural rights. They do it all the time because allowing citizens their ‘liberty’ automatically constrains government power. Government can levy custom or sales taxes to organize society and that is not a imposition on any individual’s liberty as all are subject to the tax. Where it goes off the rails is when government decides Joe must pay twice as much as Bob because Joe is more successful.
Who’s this guy Bob and I want my money back.
Joe
Sooo, are you saying the following is irrelevant, now?
“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.”
Thanks, Unit, you expanded on what I was thinking. The only time I get to post right now is when I sit down for lunch and take a break from unpacking and organizing my house.
You know a lot of mischief and grief could have been avoided if the Founders had called it the “Bill of Benefits’ instead of the Bill of Rights. Thus people would have learned to speak of having the ‘Benefit’ of a trial by a jury of your peers under the US Constitution instead of a ‘right’.
People would have still been free to expand government ‘benefits’ but having to use that term instead of ‘rights’ would have made all the difference because it requires people to think.
First off, you blather on to long – you could boil that down to a paragraph. Second, islam isn’t a religion – it’s a political ideology or doctrine using the basic tenets of various religions originally to recruit and ultimately appeal to man’s inherent nature of weakness and sin. Lastly, God is not to be used in a offensive support to bolster man’s actions…it’s God’s granting of robust defense where the can ‘o whip ass gets opened. It’s in the Bible.
And it isn’t Christians that are pushing ‘the agenda’ of these troubled times, it’s islam and their brethren, satanists et al. Like the asshole programmers who made the software I’m writing on from bill gate’s microdick & co…….do you think it’s an accident that when I don’t capitalize islam and christian – only islam is shown to be misspelled? Hmmm…..
I Offer This Not as a Rebuttal Tommy but yer full of shit.
isn’t a religion – it’s a political ideology or doctrine but Christainity is not like that because
Reasons!
Excellent point
Best,
RiNS
RiNS, may I ask your age? Just curious.
52
…..when a Christian says ‘I believe’…..they don’t cite fucking sources, studies, authors, etc. It’s in the Bible, which I am reading. You should too. But if you really feel the need to bite down on some truthiness about moooslim realities/facts, go check out Ann Barnhardt….she’ll light you up.
As for above, the two or three dozen crusades were largely retaliation – the thousands of muslim invasions were….are, conquests. You’re beyond help if you don’t understand the difference. I hope you do.
When a crispin sez i believe you best believe
cuz reasons!
I have read the Bible. Not a good book. Too many contradictions. Hardly surprising as it was plagiarized from the Greeks and Egyptians (see other thread)
But thanks for declaring me beyond help. Odin likes it laid out like that cuz he thinks Jebus is a pussy anyways…
Yours in Odin,
RiNS
Go back to playing D&D while watching Lord of the Rings, it’s a safer world for your type. Don’t forget to set the timer for your pizza pockets. And isn’t odin just gandolf anyway, without the super cool wand stick thingy? Oh, and prove it! With facts!
Game Set and Match. You prove yers and I’ll prove mine. You can’t and I don’t care.
Its a twofer and Love, TBP style, is in the air.
Or not.
Yours with most Gracious Blessings from Odin,
RiNS
and Jebus is still a pussy..
lol
“I have read the Bible. Not a good book. Too many contradictions.”
With your level of discernment, I can see why miners could end up dead when you’re the one tasked with gathering data that provides for their safety. (If you’re going to deliver cheap-shots at Christianity, please realize that there could be a response that would suggest you undergo some introspection) . And if you reject the Christian faith, that’s fine with me. But don’t ever mock me for my faith.
And Tommy is correct: Hollywood Rob is a rambling bloviator who is in love with his own words.
I’m in a bad mood today.
Vodka
A couple of years ago that would have hurt my feelz but not anymore. But did I give you a booboo. Aw shucks! I should worry about that. Nah I don’t. Especially after what you just wrote.
And yeah if you want to play I will mock it some more. You folks claim some higher moral authority on what seems to me tenuous grounds. Tenuous, hmm I like that word, read it some where today.
Anyways Have a Great Day,
Yours in Odin,
RiNS
and Jebus is still a pussy!
“Tenuous” is a lovely word. You have an ear for good writing, but it’s the word “introspection” that you need to ponder presently.
Yeah all I can say is keep it classy.
Introspection. I will do that when blowhards like you abandon this holier than thou attitude to all the rest. But you won’t and you can’t cuz it ain’t written in yer book..
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ve_ylvALnN0
An excellent illumination, Mr. Bronsdon. I stand with you on your point.
God does not grant us rights. God grants us free will (choice).
As free men, we choose to grant ourselves rights and live in a civilized society. We are honor-bound to rationalize, articulate, communicate, and protect those rights we choose for ourselves.
God stands by, observing how well we collectively exercise our free will. These days, I imagine him shaking his head.
I like what Mr. Saunders says. Even though I don’t believe in his god, I still like what he says.
Thanks, HR. Don’t read too much into my use of the term “God.” I use it as a convenience, as it is a label most people can relate to, independent of your belief system.
My concept of “God” is science-based. To me, the wonders, magnitude, and awesomeness of this universe are enabled by an infinite, all-powerful consciousness. But I don’t buy any of the trappings of Christianity, Judaism, or Islam which attempt to describe and characterize “God.” To do so is folly. The true nature of God is beyond our comprehension.
It is the ultimate cosmological stretch of misunderstanding that humans, most TBPers too, think that the universe, the pond in which they swim, is governed and manipulated by the Entity from which it sprang. What y’all call G(g)od is a watcher, not a participant or judge. However, most accepting that understanding and reality would lose their tiny little grasp and curdle in a corner, fearful of daylight. Oh, how far we, species homo, have to go to “get there”.
Excellent commentary, attempting to drill down is always a good thing. However, in the case of “Rights” it becomes a bit of a conundrum, a chicken or the egg discussion. A culture is built upon a common moral fiber, in most of history that moral fiber has been religion. The laws within a culture also tend to draw upon this common moral fiber. So while we (in the US) can attempt to divest ourselves from our Christian roots, attempts to do so comes with consequences, many of these consequences can be seen in our ‘modern’ culture today.
As John Adams wrote “Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious People. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other.” I believe this to be true, which is why the constitution is almost entirely ignored by our modern government and society.
Judaism believes in obligations, not rights
Ownership ultimately resides with G-d
Every blessing we accrue comes from G-d
We are required to put forth the effort to earn those blessings because G-d prefers to work within the laws of nature
But act we must because “G-d blesses everything we do.”
Your Prophets’ attempt to civilize a barbarian people, at the implied direction of the Creator.
Robert (QSLV)
I ask the following sincerely and not as a smartass:
Since the dawn of time, and in light of Free Will, what is it that divides civilization from savagery?
Unless one believes “civilization” and “savagery” are relative definitions, there is an answer to that question. What is it?
Conversely, if one believes “civilization” and “savagery” are, indeed, relative terms then what’s the point of the discussion?
The point of this discussion is that Xrugger contends, as do others, that basic human rights come from his god. RiNS agrees, but has a different god. The Muslims agree but their god is different still, as are the rights that they hold self evident. My contention is that rights come from the desires of those who chose which rights they prefer. You, being christian, might prefer the right to bear arms. A Muslim might prefer the right to have sex with small children. Your god told you one thing and his god told him a different thing. If you base your rights on your religion, you stand to lose your rights when another religious faith takes over. It doesn’t matter how they do it, it could be through conquest, or through immigration, or it could just be through some concerted breeding. You lose your rights if they are based on a god that is no longer the dominant concept of god which prevails in your society. Just ask the christians in londonistan how that rights from god thing is working out for them.
I claim that rights come from power. And you had better not lose it or you will lose your rights.
Hollywood Rob contends / believes rights come from power (i.e. – the desires of those who chose which rights they prefer). Nietzsche believed the will to power was the main driving force in humans, and he was influenced by Schopenhauer who believed in Wille zum Leben (will to life / self-preservation).
That’s a lot of belief right there. But where does power come from and how can one know for sure?
[img
[/img]
In my opinion, this is the essence of the argument.
Of course, my questions may be rhetorical and, therefore, I’m not debating, per se; just writing out loud. Perhaps there are no answers; only choices.
It’s not all that relative: civilizations are organized around cities, “savages” live in the wild (there remains little or no authentic wilderness, but decaying cities can offer “wild” choices).
“Gods” have arisen depending on the type of human context: in an egalitarian hunter-gatherer world, everything is alive and worth paying attention to. In an organized, hierarchical, “civilization” a monotheistic god and his levels of hell, his orders of cherubim and seraphim, etc. are more the order of the day. There are org charts for monotheistic gods.
The discussion of rights isn’t pointless, since it behooves a community to establish the rules by which it will go forward. What’s hard to imagine (to me) is mixing religious imperatives (those of Christians, Muslims, Jews) with secular rights (like the right to be left alone, no genital mutilation, etc.). So I am on the OP’s (Hollywood Rob’s) wavelength here.
” … what is it that divides civilization from savagery?” —– Uncola
Rules, and laws — established by the people, for the people, and willingly followed by the majority of people.
“Lord Of The Flies” illustrates this almost perfectly.
How about we try this on for size.
We were nothing and the we exist, therefore we were created.
Whatever our traits and behaviors are that define us are the product of our Creator. It doesn’t trouble me how people wish to define or experience their understanding of the relationship with the Creator- those are just a product of those predetermined traits combined with life experience, in other words, it’s personal. You want to think it’s God, evolution, Ancient Aliens,a coder in his parents basement on the other end of the Universe, the jinn- that’s your call, but the reality of our coming into existence from non-existence is not a point anyone can argue with
Rights are an projection of our existence in time and space as designed by our Creator. The ones we exercise are a priori, inalienable rights. The ones that are limited by the will to power of other humans are privileges.
Like muscles or money, rights are useless unless exercised. That they are a gift of our Creator is inarguable. What we choose to do with them-or not- defines our state of liberty, not any law or prohibition.
The Founders were prescient enough to codify our rights as they pertained to the collective human organism- at that time what they called ‘The Nation’ and their generational offspring,’Posterity’-
understanding the inevitability of political and organizational trends towards tyranny. All collective human organisms move in that direction as it is essential for the individual to exist as a subordinate to the many. Only by reminding those both capable of exercising their inalienable rights, but more importantly keeping a check on the inclination to abuse them as a will to power over those unable or unwilling to do so on their own.
Wild. We posted near the same time. Free will is power. How did it happen? From where did it come? Perhaps, in the end, choice is the dividing line. The crossroads, if you will…
Hey that is pretty cool. Synchronicity strikes me again!
I like that HSF and can live with that.
“Checks and balances” were definitely a wise choice. Why did the Founding Father’s prefer that over the power that is afforded by totalitarianism? Just another rhetorical question.
By the way – if one WERE to to answer my last rhetorical question above they would, in fact, be addressing my first rhetorical question on this thread as well. Just sayin’.
“We were nothing and the[n?] we exist, therefore we were created.”
I vehemently disagree.
Being created implies a Creator. But who says we were “created” in the first place?
“Creation” is a very loaded term, implying an Actor. If the world as we know it came into being through Action, then Who, in turn, created the proximate Actor?
It’s pretty clear to me that life is what happens in between energy gradients. We are a sort of crystalline structure: given a certain temperature, humidity, and chemical context, life happens. No one is in control of the story line, much less some kind of Sky Dude. Our hegemony has risen on the planet, and will fall, both because of and in spite of any sinners or saints.
HSF, I like your brain. Try this on for size. There is no “creator” as such. The universe is a temporal artifact which serves as a reflection of an extant entity. It cast forth a” piece of itself” that it might see itself. So, no interference, no interjection, no manipulation….just watches as the reflection “evolves” . Hence, quantum perfection, bell curve, massive pain and agony “forever”….TEMPORAL ARTIFACT.
That which you are given freely is a gift, regardless of whether you use it. Once exercised it becomes a right. Our lives are not created by our own force of will, nor by kings, emperors or political parties, they are a gift from a Creator however you choose to perceive it’s origin. Rights can only exist if utilized by the beings that recognize they possess them.
Uncola, I love it when you talk dirty. Nietzsche … Schopenhauer … Yes Yes yes.
And HSF, I like your take on it too. Of course, for some the creator might be an old man in a bath robe, while for others the creator might be somewhat more carnal in nature. That still does not relieve me of the obligation for enforce the rights that I have been blessed to receive in trust.
If you are cognizant of those rights the fact that they are gift of the Creator doesn’t “relieve you of the obligation”, but rather it is a breech of the compact between Creator and creation to behave in such a manner as to reject those gifts.
Of course you also have to take into account that the natural state of mankind is some form of slavery so this only applies to those with the added capacity to live as free men.
Rights are not gifts.
That is the entire point of the Constitution, Magna Carta, etc.. , from what I can see.
————–
If you think your “rights” are “gifts” from whatever third party (king, emperor, god, political Party) then they are not rights, but only concessions, and you are a supplicant.
HSF. None of us were there when these concepts were being tossed around the tankards late into the night but they actually had quite a few years to hammer things out. Some of these guys were christians. Some were deists, and some were flat out atheists. They had to craft a document that they all could sign and still go home and go to bed. We can read what it is that they came up with.
You all seem to concentrate on the concept of a creator in the sense of a god in heaven. For some of the writers of the Bill of Rights that might well have been what they took to bed with them. Others might have seen that word to mean a more general idea of a diety, although not necessarily the christian god and some might well have found comfort in the creator as that man who created them directly. Your father was your creator. You are the creator of your sons and daughters.
Just because the word creator is used does not mean that it implies a god in heaven. That is something that you add in. It is your interpretation. I am not saying that it is yours alone, but I am suggesting that even if the people writing the Amendments included a reference to a creator, they did not necessarily have your own personal image of god in heaven in mind. You have to keep in mind that they were really sure of one thing. If you let the king be the head of the church you are in for a world of hurt.
Rob says: “I love it when you talk dirty. Nietzsche … Schopenhauer … Yes Yes yes.”
Since I was out of town on Easter, I did my penance on Ann Barnhardt’s site where I saw this:
+1000
“I speak Latin to God, Italian to women, French to men and German to my horse.”
-Charles V
I speak English to women, and Italian to my dog and to my husband.
Chubby Bubbles. Now it all makes sense.
[img
[/img]
A picture is worth a 1000 words; you need say no more…
In my opinion, all the derived rights (as listed by the amendments) are the natural result of the fact that a person has the intrinsic right to own himself. Ie not be serf, slave, or subject. As such, he or she can speak freely, own property, defend themself etc so long as it doesnt infringe on someone elses rights.
In General I agree with what you have said.
I see you.
The Golden Rule.
Western (Christian) civilization began when Jesus confronted the mob that wanted to stone the adulteress. He wrote each man’s sins on the ground, and each dropped his stone in the dirt, one by one, and went home. Each amendment is the writing of our sins in the dirt, a recognition that we are fallen, wrathful men who need to drop our stones so that we may, through God, in an emulation of Christ, become a better people:
Amendment 4. The right to be secure in your persons and property. – Because we are wrathful people who will ransack the homes of our neighbors, and even imprison them because they offend us (dropped stone).
Amendment 5. The right to due process. – Because we are spiteful men, who will keep our neighbors locked up without a fair trial just to prove a point (dropped stone).
Amendment 6. The right to a speedy trial with a council.- Because we’re lazy slothful men who don’t seek justice for others, only ourselves (dropped stone)
Amendment 7. The right to a trial by a jury if the amount exceeds $20. – Because we’re greedy men, who steal from each other, and need a peaceful outlet that doesn’t resort to bloodshed (dropped stone).
Amendment 8. The right to not have excessive bail or fines. – Because we’re envious men, who will use the law to steal from each other unless it is forbidden (dropped stone).
Amendment 9. The rights enumerated to you do not exclude other rights without specification. – Because we’re wrathful me, who will use these very words to imprison someone if we can get the chance (dropped stone)
Amendment 10. The rights not delegated to the federal government are to be held by the states or the people. – Because we are a men who lust for power and money, and in government, this leads to centralization (dropped stone).
JR, I applaud your effort. Clearly you though a great deal about what you wrote. But I believe that you interpret the Bill of Rights as restrictions on the actions of citizens when in fact it appears to me to be solely a set of restrictions on the power of the government. In other words, you are treating the Bill of Rights as the ten commandments; “Thou Shalt Not”, as opposed to guarantees of freedoms; “The government Shalt Not.”
I believe that the Bill/Constitution were framed so as to protect the rights of the individual from being overrun by the masses. The individual rights were to exist even if the masses wanted them extinguished.
And ever since, politicians and interest groups have worked diligently to overthrow that intent, and have largely succeeded.
Rights in the end must me defended by law, or by individuals and groups brave and strong enough to do so.
I do not see much defending going on. No defending, so no rights. And it is an accelerating process.