Why Separation Of Atheism And State Is Necessary
wordsof...@email.com
Bob Just
http://www.wnd.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=28288
"Of all the dispositions and habits which lead to political prosperity,
religion and morality are indispensable supports. . . . In vain would
that man claim the tribute of patriotism who should labor to subvert
these great pillars of human happiness."
- George Washington's farewell address
Imagine that it was not the 9th Circuit, but the United States Supreme
Court that made the "under God" decision. Imagine that instead of two
nervous circuit judges, it was five brazen Supreme Court Justices
declaring the Pledge unconstitutional in some nightmare future years
from now - five secular devotees who'd been patiently waiting for a
chance to save government from the "ancient superstitions" of its
people. And soon more secular decisions come down from the high court:
"In God We Trust" is rejected as the national motto. Prayers are
forbidden at inaugural ceremonies. And on and on.
No second chance. No appeal. The Supreme Court has spoken, and as far
as government is concerned, "God is dead." Yes, you can worship at home
or in church, says the court, but don't you dare act on your beliefs in
the public square. Finally, religious Americans awaken to see the
dangers of secularism, but nothing can be done. With a powerful secular
media cheerleading and a huge secular lobby pouring money into
Washington, there's no real chance to correct the tyrannous decisions
with an amendment.
So now America becomes officially a nation under "nothing" -
government no longer recognizes any authority higher than its own
democratic opinions, a true "dictatorship of the people," as Lenin
called it. Atheism is thus able to rise to a legal dominance never seen
before in America, never even imagined. After all, atheism and
secularism are twins - one doesn't believe in God, and the other
can't. The end result is the same: Believers are made outsiders.
Sound farfetched? It isn't really. An Al Gore victory easily could have
given us a high court that looked like Judge Stephen Reinhardt, the
Democrat appointee who shared the "under God" decision with Judge
Goodwin. The truth is that even now we are only one or two secular
Supreme Court Justices away from a solid ACLU court, and all that it
implies - virulent hostility to America's religious traditions.
One amendment, under God
While so many in the media have been doing their best to make light of
the 9th Circuit decision on the Pledge of Allegiance, others recognize
the very real dangers involved in that decision. By most accounts, the
ruling is likely to be overturned, but that doesn't change the sobering
message that was sent to all Americans.
As currently interpreted, our Constitution is choking our religious
traditions out of existence, and there seems to be no stopping it as
the "under God" Pledge decision indicates. Even with a supposedly
conservative Supreme Court, victories against the secular encroachments
of government are too rare, and when they do come, they are attacked on
all sides by groups like the ACLU. It is often a battle for inches.
Recently, a number of congressmen called for a constitutional amendment
to preserve "under God" in the Pledge, but we need more than that. We
need something more historically based, something capable of inspiring
average Americans by eliminating the relativist interpretations of the
First Amendment, something that would help our federal government
reclaim its lost identity.
With so many secular forces in society hostile to the faiths of our
fathers, it's time to codify the "self-evident" truths of the
Declaration of Independence by putting them in the Constitution.
Let us declare ourselves to history by re-establishing the simple, but
essential, political principle that we are uniquely created beings,
precious before God, and that our rights come from God and not from
government. There can be no neutrality in this where government is
concerned. We either have souls or we do not. Our nation is either
under God, or it is not.
Of course, no one wants a theocracy, something repugnant certainly to
Christian Americans who are, after all, in the vast majority. However,
decades of overreaching by the high court indicate that secularism is
not the answer either. There must be a third choice, because as long as
"disbelief" is considered to be on an equal footing with "belief," not
only will faith find itself unwelcome in our halls of power, it will
eventually be removed from the body politic like a threatening tumor.
This could happen if we let it.
The case isn't closed
Consider the current situation. Michael Newdow, the atheist who sued to
get God out of the Pledge, says that right now there are four Justices
he believes are favorable to his view: David Souter, Ruth Bader
Ginsberg, Stephen Breyer and John Paul Stevens. Newdow also lists
Justice Anthony Kennedy as a possible fifth vote, due to a 1989
church-state dissent in which Kennedy pointed out that the "under God"
Pledge is problematic for atheists.
Although unlikely, it's also fair to consider Justice O'Connor as a
possible 6th vote due to her stated position that citizens should not
be made to feel like "outsiders" by the state when it comes to
religion. Let's face it, "one nation under God" leaves atheists out,
and it's no coincidence that Newdow made this very point a significant
part of his argument to the 9th Circuit.
Sadly, radical atheists like Newdow will always feel like outsiders in
a nation under God, and they will continue all efforts to undermine our
religious traditions. That's the reality of it. Newdow doesn't believe
his little daughter has a soul, or that her rights come from anywhere
but government. These beliefs are in direct conflict with the views of
most Americans. And yet, atheist views are more common than any of us
would like to think within America's judicial and political circles,
the very people who will define the future Supreme Court.
So don't be misled by my "shocked" fellow Democrats, and all the pundit
proclamations that the "under God" decision will go nowhere. For now,
it may not, but there's nothing "nuts" about the judicial thinking of
the 9th Circuit decision, and most liberal politicians know it, despite
their election-year religiosity.
It's true that many constitutional experts, including quintessential
liberal Lawrence Tribe, say it's likely the Supreme Court will reverse
the 9th Circuit if the case gets that far. However, whether the "under
God" decision goes anywhere now is not the point. There are many
atheist, secular and anti-traditional organizations in Washington that
are determined to win this fight eventually - and by current
constitutional standards they have a case. That's the problem.
"Nobody can say that the 9th Circuit was illogical," said Washington
Post columnist E. J. Dionne who, despite reservations, considered the
decision "principled." He is not alone among pundits and experts to
think that. Yale law professor Jack Blakin told Time magazine that the
opinion was "technically correct," and writing in Newsweek, famed legal
analyst Stuart Taylor called it "perfectly plausible."
Although Taylor felt the decision was almost certain to be reversed, he
made the larger point about the legal mess we are in. "As much as the
ruling overreached, the California court was clearly taking its cues
from a higher authority - the U.S. Supreme Court."
An ethical foundation built on sand
So, clearly the 9th Circuit decision did not occur in a vacuum. It
followed a well-established pattern of thinking that atheism is on an
equal footing with America's Judeo-Christian traditions. It also
revealed another established belief, that monotheism itself - the
pumping heart of Western Culture - is just another form of worship,
essentially no different, as far as the government is concerned, than,
say, worshiping ancient Greek gods like Zeus and Hera (pagan deities
who were always squabbling over one thing or another).
Does this sound like an exaggeration? Then consider the now-famous
words of Judge Goodwin in June's 9th Circuit majority opinion:
In the context of the Pledge, the statement that the United States is a
nation, "under God" is an endorsement of religion. It is a profession
of a religious belief, namely a belief in monotheism. . . . A
profession that we are a nation "under God" is identical, for
Establishment Clause purposes, to a profession that we are a nation
"under Jesus," a nation "under Vishnu," a nation "under Zeus," or a
nation "under no god," because none of these professions can be neutral
with respect to religion.
This "neutrality" renders government completely dysfunctional. The
bottom line? If you are someone who thinks thunder happens "when the
gods are angry," or if you burn incense to a rock you found on the
beach, or if you believe in nothing at all, you've got as much
potential credibility with this new government as those who believe the
biblical worldview that reveals God as "love," that speaks of the
struggle between good and evil, and promises hope of true freedom and
eternal peace for all mankind.
Increasingly, judges can view all these approaches to religion as
essentially equal - which constitutionally means government can have
little or no official understanding of life based on anything but
atheist science, whether physical, biological, social or psychological.
And as we've seen countless times, not only do these scientists change
their minds regularly, their conclusions are often based on faulty or
prejudiced interpretation of data. Not a very reliable source of
wisdom.
This would be less of a problem if government were not involved in our
lives in almost every possible way, from decisions on when a cause is
worth the shedding of American blood to decisions related to family and
the social order. What are the standards that inform these decisions?
Americans have a right to ask this question, and demand a clear answer.
The one-God problem
Unfortunately, a government that's neutral to the great moral and
philosophical questions of the ages cannot give us intelligent or even
cogent answers to life's urgent questions. It was not always so.
Consider what a 1951 U.S. Naval Officers' training manual says about
the need for good character in military leadership (once assumed as
essential for public office too):
By character is meant integrity, courage, morality, humility and
unswerving determination. Character is a spiritual force. It is a
reflection of a man's grip upon himself, the degree to which he is able
to dominate the baser instincts that beset us all.
This is the kind of wisdom that created a truly great society. But
current court vogue (not to mention some future ACLU court) would look
askance at such presumptions. Atheists would object to the idea of a
"spiritual force." And the very expression "base instincts" suggests a
lack of tolerance. Who gets to decide what base instincts are? Whose
morality are we talking about?
A recent Zogby poll reports that three-quarters of American college
professors still teach a post-modern worldview that accepts no
universal right or wrong. So if you cook the books at Enron, it may or
may not be wrong. Only one-fourth of all professors teach that "there
are clear and uniform standards of right and wrong by which everyone
should be judged." Guess which professors are more likely to get
secular government grants.
A government that lays claim to neutrality on religious - and thus on
traditional moral - issues is a government that inevitably lacks
dependable standards. This kind of government will be very
uncomfortable with any religion that claims to have clarity on those
issues - and that means monotheism. Thus "neutrality" becomes
hostility. George Washington's views would not be welcome. However, the
accommodating vagueness of polytheism and pantheism doesn't present the
same problem to secular government and is therefore less threatening.
Remember, monotheism has One Creator, God, and thus one truth, and one
path along which people can be guided if they are willing. That's why
monotheism was such a social revolution. There's clarity on core
principles - God knows what He thinks. And there are no squabbling
divine personalities because God knows who He is. Monotheism is by its
very nature a "theory of everything," a unified field of thinking which
allows for great social focus in building and maintaining civilization.
So, when the judicial system tries to rise above this and treat all
religions equally, it will necessarily come face to face with
monotheism.
The other great problem is the court's constitutional respect for
atheism, which is, after all, the most vague of belief systems. But
more than that, atheism also assumes an air of secular neutrality
because it believes in nothing at all. This gives it a dangerous
tactical advantage over monotheism in dealing with secular government.
If nothing is done about this, government will continue to favor
atheist organizations within society, and ultimately to favor religions
with an indifferent worldview. Monotheism, with its sureness of vision
and purpose, will become increasingly alien to secular government,
which looks for compromise from its religious junior partners.
But God doesn't compromise, and He makes a very poor junior partner.
Consequently, under the current interpretation of the Establishment
Clause, monotheism will become an outcast in its own society.
Secular hostility
There is so little understanding of the anti-God bias involved in
government's secular "neutrality" that it is not only quietly accepted
by many judges, and even some justices, it is loudly cheered on by the
dominant media culture. Of course, often this cheering is not rooted in
ignorance, but based on downright contempt.
"We should all applaud the brave decision of the 9th U.S. Circuit Court
of Appeals," said the editorial page of the Philadelphia Daily News.
"Let's be honest about this issue - finally - after decades of
mouth-frothing. The word God doesn't belong in the Pledge, on our
money, in anything with the government's seal of approval."
Indeed, let's be honest. The New York Times called the 9th Circuit
decision a "well meaning ruling," and reminded its readers that "under
God" became part of the pledge "at the height of anti-communist fervor"
in 1954. But then the editorial went on to express its deeper
sentiments. When it comes to understanding the secular culture's
contempt for religion, this comment says it all:
The practical impact of the ruling is inviting a political backlash for
a matter that does not rise to a constitutional violation. We wish the
words had not been added back in 1954. But just the way removing a
well-lodged foreign body from an organism may sometimes be more
damaging than letting it stay put, removing those words would cause
more harm than leaving them in.
Yes, nothing like trying to remove a "foreign body" and causing even
greater problems in terms of "political backlash." Better to wait until
you have a 6-3 or even a 7-2 majority so you can cut God out cleanly
and without much opposition. Better wait until the public is more ready
to accept full secularism. In other words, now is not the time - but
the time will come.
The secular left must be careful that religious Americans don't catch
on to the left's true contempt for religion, especially not in a
crucial election year. The left knows that if conservative America gets
control of the Senate, President Bush will get his judicial nominees
approved and that could mean a return to our traditional moral and
political roots guided by the Founders' original intent. Thus, the
struggle in this country! And remember, it is not a partisan struggle.
One of the two 9th Circuit liberals was a Republican. There are
secularists in all parties.
The sleeping giant
Most religious Americans do not grasp that the culture war is really
about religion. Howard Kurtz, media critic for the Washington Post,
made a revealing observation right after two high-profile First
Amendment decisions on the "under God" Pledge and religious school
choice. "The culture wars, after a brief time-out for such mundane
matters as fighting terrorism, are back," said Kurtz. He gets it.
America's cultural struggle may take many forms, but at its heart, it's
about God, who He is and what He expects from His people. The atheist
and pagan forces in American society also know this, and that's why
even "ceremonial deism" makes them nervous. God needs to be eliminated,
but they've got to go slowly to avoid waking up the sleeping giant.
According to an ABC poll, 89 percent of the American public is in favor
of keeping God in the Pledge of Allegiance. That's a problem for
radical secularists.
So what's going on now - and has been for decades - is a kind of
seduction. Police officers have a useful expression for it when it
comes to the corruption of innocence. They call it "progressive
involvement." In child molestation, for example, each step involves the
child a bit more, until the victim submits to sexual activity he or she
would have run from earlier. That's how progressive involvement works,
and secularists have been using it for years, one step at a time.
Slowly our values are changed. Slowly our laws are changed. Slowly God
is squeezed out - until it is too late to turn back.
However, now the embarrassing 9th Circuit has gone too far, too fast,
and the secular left is nervous that the people are catching on to the
motives behind "judicial progress." All eyes are on Judeo-Christian
Americans. The sleeping giant may yet awaken.
Protecting our future
Because of the outrage over the appellate court's rejection of the
"under God" Pledge, people might be willing to stem the tide of
secularism. Most Americans are tired of court rulings like those that
forbid prayer at high school football games and graduations. They just
don't know what to do about it, especially since the supposed "wall of
separation" has become so much a part of our social, political and
media culture. However, after years of being intimidated by groups like
the ACLU (which agreed with the Pledge decision, of course), the people
might be ready to de-fang the beast.
Even William Rehnquist, chief justice of the Supreme Court, thinks the
1947 "separation" decision was a disaster. "The metaphor of a 'wall of
separation' is bad history and worse law," said Rehnquist. "It has made
a positive chaos out of court rulings. It should be frankly and
explicitly abandoned."
But the question is how? We know for sure that radical secularists
won't cooperate. Faith terrifies them. So how do we protect American
principles from being dismantled one at a time or in bunches? How can
we guarantee our children and grandchildren that they will inherit a
government that is officially allowed to recognize they have a soul?
How can we prevent them from being ruled over by a secular government
that thinks of them as mere "human resources" and that rejects any firm
standard of truth or justice? And how do we do all that without
undermining our First Amendment freedoms?
It can't be through this continual high court battle of inches, where
nominees to the Supreme Court are forced to play a cat-and-mouse game
to hide their religious views from a supposedly religious Senate, where
hearings have become a quietly vicious arena in which people are
destroyed by lies and innuendo (the atheist left excels at playing that
game). Nor can we tolerate anymore this atheist hypocrisy of using
every attacking question to "expose" a conservative judicial nominee
except the one question they really want to ask: "Are you a believer?"
Most of us want a return to the "political prosperity" George
Washington talked about in his farewell address, but again the question
is how? How do we stop this national breakdown of character and
conscience? How do we cut the Gordian knot that binds any sensible
discussion of "religion and morality" in public policy? How do we break
through to common sense? There is an answer.
"America came into this world with a message for all mankind," said
President Bush on Independence Day. "That all are created equal and all
are meant to be free."
The third choice
In 1947, a Supreme Court dominated by secularists took those words
"wall of separation" from an incidental letter Thomas Jefferson wrote
during his presidency and used them to build the basis of the
Separation of Church and State decision. Jefferson, by the way, had no
part in writing the Constitution. Without precedent, the high court
decided that government could be separate from the one thing our
founders thought was essential to life, liberty and the pursuit of
happiness - faith in the reality of God.
Those justices believed something truly disastrous - that government
can be neutral to truth. They made one of the worst and most
destructive judicial decisions in history based on their own personal,
secular assumptions about life, and as a result, America is losing her
identity. Our freedoms are at risk. As President Bush said recently,
"There is no capitalism without conscience."
Well, there is no conscience without God. So let the following deeply
held words of Thomas Jefferson now come to the rescue in the 21st
century as a constitutional amendment:
"We hold these truths to be self evident, that all men are created
equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain inalienable
rights . . ."
These few words from the Declaration of Independence have rung true to
Americans throughout our history. They are the foundation of our
freedom. We have lived for them and died for them - and so have
others, for they have inspired freedom-fighters around the world. But,
as important as they are, they are not law. So let us now give them
constitutional permanence.
How wonderful it would be to know that these self-evident truths are
not just ceremonial sentiments, but are actually part of our legal
relationship with government - part of our social contract.
And while we are considering this course of action, let us consider
also these other words of Thomas Jefferson:
"God who gave us life gave us liberty. Can the liberties of a nation be
secure when we have removed a conviction that these liberties are a
gift of God?"
Words to think about. And words to act on.
Bob Just is a WorldNetDaily columnist, editor-at-large of Whistleblower
magazine, a veteran national radio talk-show host and founder and
president of the Oregon-based "Concerned Fathers Against Crime" and
"Concerned Mothers Alliance for Children." His television appearances
include "Hannity & Colmes," "Politically Incorrect" and "Fox &
Friends," he speaks publicly on various topics and can be reached
through his website, BobJust.com.
Arizona Bushwhacker
Marines.
<wordsof...@email.com> wrote in message
news:1123546274.4...@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com...
Hugh Betcha
not granted by kings or oher mere men; how do you you make it 'fair'
for atheists? Wouldn't anything else be a step backwards?
Virgil
wordsof?????1...@email.com wrote:
>
> Imagine that it was not the 9th Circuit, but the United States Supreme
> Court that made the "under God" decision. Imagine that instead of two
> nervous circuit judges, it was five brazen Supreme Court Justices
> declaring the Pledge unconstitutional in some nightmare future years
> from now - five secular devotees who'd been patiently waiting for a
> chance to save government from the "ancient superstitions" of its
> people.
Since "under God" was not any part of the original, but was added well
after I had learned it without those added words. And to my mind it is
still as it was then.
The very original read
I pledge allegiance to my Flag,
and to the Republic for which it stands:
one Nation indivisible,
With Liberty and Justice for all.
October 11, 1892
.........................
First revision
I pledge allegiance to my the
Flag of the United States,
and to the Republic for which it stands:
one Nation indivisible,
With Liberty and Justice for all.
June 14, 1923
..........................
Second revision
I pledge allegiance to the Flag
of the United States of America,
and to the Republic for which it stands:
one Nation indivisible,
With Liberty and Justice for all.
June 14, 1924
...........................
Third revision
I pledge allegiance to the Flag
of the United States of America,
and to the Republic for which it stands:
one Nation under God, indivisible,
With Liberty and Justice for all.
June 14, 1954
So that "under God" has been there for less that half of the life of the
pledge, and was inserted primarily as a response to the then perceived
threat of communism, and for no religious reason.
bam
"Virgil" <ITSnetNOTcom#vir...@COMCAST.com> wrote in message
news:ITSnetNOTcom%23virgil-3F7E09...@comcast.dca.giganews.com...
What is the source of our "rights"? God? Or the State?
BAM
Greywolf
"Virgil" <ITSnetNOTcom#vir...@COMCAST.com> wrote in message
news:ITSnetNOTcom%23virgil-3F7E09...@comcast.dca.giganews.com...
As an atheist who has had no real problem with "under God" in the pledge of
allegiance or "In God We Trust" on our currency in the past, I've changed my
view (slightly) because of your post. I just accepted that both references
to God was part of our American "tradition" and treated it as such. But
after looking over your post, and seeing just how recently the words "under
God" were inserted into the "pledge," I see those words now as religious
coercion. They *really* shouldn't be incorporated if every child in the
public school system is obligated to recite them. It is subtle religious
indoctrination. Make no mistake about it. As far as, "In God We Trust" on
the currency, though, it still doesn't really bother me. We are, after all,
a religious nation. The religionists can have this bit of "promotion" as far
as I'm concerned. It really doesn't hurt or offend anyone, does it?
Greywolf
Santolina chamaecyparissus
bam wrote:
>
> What is the source of our "rights"? God? Or the State?
>
That's an easy one. Your rights are whatever the jurisdiction you
happen to live under says they are. Where else would they come from?
The DCLXVIth Earl of Helpus.
bam wrote:
> What is the source of our "rights"? God? Or the State?
>
Since God doesn't exist, and the state is there to protect privilege
and power, I guess we are all the source of our "rights" and are all
responsible for defining them and defending them, and are all
responsible for the consequences of failing to do so, which is why
religion, being about the control of people's minds by those in
power,is as poisonous as it is.
pba...@worldonline.nl
wordsof...@email.com schreef:
> Separation of atheism and state
>
> Bob Just
Sorry Bob, that I snip most of your post in answering,
but your long argument does not cover the subject.
I would lik toi pont out to you that state and Atheism are already
seperated in most countries. Nobody has to say in a pledge of
allegiance
that there is no God.
The problem is that ever since 1954 people are asked to say "under
God",
and to somebody who really thinks such a God does not exist that makes
the pledge utter nonsences.
If you do not understeand what effect these words have on an Atheist,
try to grasp the words "One Nation under SantaClaus"
That would probably have the same effect on you as " One Nation under
God" has on an atheist.
By the way, I have always considered the pledge wrong, whether with or
without the words "Under God".
Even before I realized that "God" did not exist outside the human
brain,
I had serieous problems with any pledge of allegiance to a Flag.
I considered such a pledge just as bad as pleaqding allegiance to a
graven image.
One should not treat a symbol such as a Flag with to much respect,
in order to prevent that symbol from becoming an idol.
Now that I am an Atheist, worshipping Idols, still seams wrong to me.
In fact it still seems worse than worshipping an invisable diety.
Well: Think about it,
Peter van Velzen.
August 2005
Amstelveen
The Netherlands
presently posting from Thung Song, Thailand.
Paul Duca
mcca...@bellsouthblahblah.net wrote on 8/8/05 11:21 PM:
I've never trusted either one...they only give what THEY feel like,
not necessarily what I want.
Paul
Roger
Religion's in there.
Atheism isn't.
Get it?
Of course not.
<wordsof...@email.com> wrote in message
news:1123546274.4...@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com...
bam
"Santolina chamaecyparissus" <sant...@juno.com> wrote in message
news:1123558253....@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com...
Then our Founding Fathers had no "divine right" to rebel, and America is
basically "illegitimate".
BAM
bam
"The DCLXVIth Earl of Helpus." <use...@heathens.org.uk> wrote in message
news:1123567335.5...@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
You deserve to be a slave.
BAM
Rob Olsen
<mcca...@bellsouthblahblah.net> wrote:
>
>"Santolina chamaecyparissus" <sant...@juno.com> wrote in message
>news:1123558253....@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com...
>>
>> bam wrote:
>>
>>>
>>> What is the source of our "rights"? God? Or the State?
>>>
>>
>> That's an easy one. Your rights are whatever the jurisdiction you
>> happen to live under says they are. Where else would they come from?
>
>Then our Founding Fathers had no "divine right" to rebel,
that is correct. There is no such thing as 'divine right'.
>and America is
>basically "illegitimate".
The founding fathers were traitors. There is no doubt of that. Does
that mean the US is illegitimate? I guess that depends on your point
of view.
>
>BAM
>
Kate
<mcca...@bellsouthblahblah.net> wrote:
They didn't claim a divine right to rebel. I believe it was a natural
right.
bam
"Kate " <cob...@newscene.com> wrote in message
news:4301bc07....@news-west.newscene.com...
You don't know what you're talking about. Or do you? Tell us, what is a
natural right?
BAM
bam
"Rob Olsen" <ROl...@insider.net> wrote in message
news:94dhf1pefq2im9u2b...@4ax.com...
No it doesn't. It's either true or false. Point of view be damned.
BAM
Jez
@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com:
> Separation of atheism and state
>
> Bob Just
Suprise suprise, another crock of shit.
Get a life dude will ya ?
--
Jez, MBA.,
Country Dancing and Advanced Astrology, UBS.
'Realism is seductive because once you have accepted the reasonable
notion that you should base your actions on reality, you are too often
led to accept, without much questioning, someone else's version of what
that reality is. It is a crucial act of independent thinking to be
skeptical of someone else's description of reality.'-
Howard Zinn
Sid9
> On Mon, 8 Aug 2005 23:21:30 -0400, "bam"
> <mcca...@bellsouthblahblah.net> wrote:
>>
>> What is the source of our "rights"? God? Or the State?
>>
>
When 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.
Not very Christian is it?
Nature's god.
Not man's god.
Laws of Nature....
bam
"Just Cocky" <ju...@cocky.com> wrote in message
news:5jhhf1dmav0kqhiiu...@4ax.com...
>>
>
Another flunkie - next?
BAM
bam
"Sid9" <si...@bellsouth.net> wrote in message
news:8r4Ke.4952$3p....@bignews3.bellsouth.net...
Man is part of Nature, freshman.
BAM
JohnN
people. The people established a democratic republic by ratifying the
Constitution that includes the Bill of Rights. The people have fought
and died for those rights; some to expand the rights and some to
constrict them. But always the people, always the people sacrificed
themselves onto death for the principles written in the Constitution.
The Christian God never established a democracy or republic. That god
appointed kings and set them over the people. King George III ruled
Great Britain by divine right. The people of Great Britain, more
accurately the nobles, waged many wars over many, many years to curtail
the monarchy. They established a parliament to 'help' the monarch
rule, to rule under a code of human law. The thirteen colonies
completed a process started in 1776 of eliminating the monarchy part of
government.
JohnN
Santolina chamaecyparissus
bam wrote:
> "Santolina chamaecyparissus" <sant...@juno.com> wrote in message
> news:1123558253....@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com...
> >
> > bam wrote:
> >
> >>
> >> What is the source of our "rights"? God? Or the State?
> >>
> >
> > That's an easy one. Your rights are whatever the jurisdiction you
> > happen to live under says they are. Where else would they come from?
>
> Then our Founding Fathers had no "divine right" to rebel,
Correct.
> and America is
> basically "illegitimate".
>
How do you figure?
Kate
It's called the declaration of Independence. Try looking it up. Or
did you not realize you were using the internet?
quote
When 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.
unquote
Seems like it's - here we are, and you aren't, so the law of nature -
distance says we can ignore you because you are being annoying and we
don't want to pay your taxes and you can't make us.
Michael Price
Then they are not rights at all, just priveleges revokable at
will. If the "jurisdiction" gets to say what my "rights" are
then I say that I my rights are much wider than that and include
the right to declare that I am my own jurisdiction. Since I am
the jurisdiction logically I have the right to do that. The
previous jurisdiction cannot logically object because that's how
they got to be a jurisdiction.
fea...@yahoo.com
Virgil wrote:
> In article <1123546274.4...@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com>,
> wordsof?????1...@email.com wrote:
>
>
> >
> > Imagine that it was not the 9th Circuit, but the United States Supreme
> > Court that made the "under God" decision. Imagine that instead of two
> > nervous circuit judges, it was five brazen Supreme Court Justices
> > declaring the Pledge unconstitutional in some nightmare future years
> > from now - five secular devotees who'd been patiently waiting for a
> > chance to save government from the "ancient superstitions" of its
> > people.
>
> Since "under God" was not any part of the original, but was added well
> after I had learned it without those added words. And to my mind it is
> still as it was then.
Interesting; in your mind how many states are there? I guess that means
we should go back to the amount of states that existed when you were
younger, too. The flag should revert back as well.
bam
Because they called upon God to validate their undertaking.
BAM
Sid9
> Virgil wrote:
>> In article <1123546274.4...@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com>,
>> wordsof?????1...@email.com wrote:
>>
>>
>>>
>>> Imagine that it was not the 9th Circuit, but the United States
>>> Supreme Court that made the "under God" decision. Imagine that
>>> instead of two nervous circuit judges, it was five brazen Supreme
>>> Court Justices declaring the Pledge unconstitutional in some
>>> nightmare future years from now - five secular devotees who'd been
>>> patiently waiting for a chance to save government from the "ancient
>>> superstitions" of its people.
>>
>> Since "under God" was not any part of the original, but was added
>> well after I had learned it without those added words. And to my
>> mind it is still as it was then.
>
> Interesting; in your mind how many states are there? I guess that
> means we should go back to the amount of states that existed when you
> were younger, too. The flag should revert back as well.
>
>
It shouldn't have been added to the pledge.
It was wrong. It injected religion where it wasn't needed.
There's nothing wrong with correcting an error.
What you wrote has nothing to do with how the pledge was changed
Sid9
> "Santolina chamaecyparissus" <sant...@juno.com> wrote in message
> news:1123639041.7...@g47g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
>>
>> bam wrote:
>>> "Santolina chamaecyparissus" <sant...@juno.com> wrote in message
>>> news:1123558253....@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com...
>>>>
>>>> bam wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> What is the source of our "rights"? God? Or the State?
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> That's an easy one. Your rights are whatever the jurisdiction you
>>>> happen to live under says they are. Where else would they come
>>>> from?
>>>
>>> Then our Founding Fathers had no "divine right" to rebel,
>>
>>
>> Correct.
>>
>>
>>> and America is
>>> basically "illegitimate".
>>>
>>
>> How do you figure?
>
> Because they called upon God to validate their undertaking.
>
> BAM
Which god?. I see no god.
Maybe "nature's god" but not man's god and especially no Christian god
In case you don;t recognize it, this is the preamble to the Declaration of
Independence:
"When 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....."
bam
> On Tue, 9 Aug 2005 11:06:45 -0400, "bam"
> <mcca...@bellsouthblahblah.net> wrote:
>
>>
>>"Kate " <cob...@newscene.com> wrote in message
>>news:4301bc07....@news-west.newscene.com...
>>> On Tue, 9 Aug 2005 08:56:15 -0400, "bam"
>>> <mcca...@bellsouthblahblah.net> wrote:
>>>
>>>>
>>>>"Santolina chamaecyparissus" <sant...@juno.com> wrote in message
>>>>news:1123558253....@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com...
>>>>>
>>>>> bam wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> What is the source of our "rights"? God? Or the State?
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> That's an easy one. Your rights are whatever the jurisdiction you
>>>>> happen to live under says they are. Where else would they come from?
>>>>
>>>>Then our Founding Fathers had no "divine right" to rebel, and America is
>>>>basically "illegitimate".
>>>>
>>>>BAM
>>>>
>>>
>>> They didn't claim a divine right to rebel. I believe it was a natural
>>> right.
>>
>>You don't know what you're talking about. Or do you? Tell us, what is a
>>natural right?
>>
>>BAM
>>
>
> It's called the declaration of Independence. Try looking it up. Or
> did you not realize you were using the internet?
So, a "natural right" is The Declaration of Independence?
How far did you get in school?
BAM
bam
> reference: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deism
Duh.
We also read further on........
And for the support of this Declaration, with a firm reliance on the
protection of divine Providence, we mutually pledge to each other our Lives,
our Fortunes and our sacred Honor.
God may have been referred to in a "generic" way in order to mollify the
weirdos. Nevertheless, without God, the Declaration of Independence has no
legitimacy. Secondly, without God, our rights are merely governmental gifts.
BAM
Sid9
Care to explain that?
No one said a "natural right" is "the Declaration of Independence"
Sid9
There's no Christian god nor is our country EVER described as a Christian
nation.
The wierdos that founded our country?
Our "Rights" are a direct descendant of an essay by John Locke "The rights
of Man"
The rights are "inherent" rights. Neither god nor government grants them
JohnN
Just Cocky wrote:
> On 9 Aug 2005 12:57:05 -0700, "JohnN" <jnor...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> >
> >In the United States of America, our rights are derived from the
> >people. The people established a democratic republic by ratifying the
> >Constitution that includes the Bill of Rights.
> >
>
> people's rights.
that is not bullshit, the government can not violate our rights as
listed in the first ten admendments to the Constitution as ratified by
the original thirteen states.
> These rights exist prior to the BoR or the BoR
> wouldn't be able to protect anything.
The rights listed in the BoR may have been in the individual state
constitution or even in the Articles of Confederation. But they were
written into the Constituion by the people who created the United
States of America. They were not proclaimed on a mountain by a prophet
and written on stone tablets.
JohnN
Kate
<mcca...@bellsouthblahblah.net> wrote:
Obviously a lot further than you did if you came up with that
conclusion from what I wrote.
Come back when you've passed basic reading.
bam
Just read (above)
BAM
bam
Snipped from above:
>>>Tell us, what is a
>>>natural right?
>>>BAM
Kate " <cob...@newscene.com> wrote in message
>> It's called the declaration of Independence.
BAM
bam
That's a non-sequitur. They can be inherent and God given as the document
says: "endowed by our Creator with certain inalienable rights"
If this were a trial - you'd be convicted.
BAM
Sid9
Try John Locke, "The Rights of Man"
His essay buried the "Devine rights of kings" and inspired our founders.
If you don't know this stuff go back to school.
bam
> On Wed, 10 Aug 2005 12:12:24 -0400, "bam"
> <mcca...@bellsouthblahblah.net> wrote:
>>
>>
>>God may have been referred to in a "generic" way in order to mollify the
>>weirdos. Nevertheless, without God, the Declaration of Independence has no
>>legitimacy.
>>
>
> British had won, the Declaration of Independence would mean nothing
> today.
I don't like you. (first of all). That's a punk's reply.
Secondly, who are you to say that it would have meant nothing today - punk?
> My rights aren't a gift from anyone or anything. They are mine,
> intrinsic to me, as I was born this way.
That's intrinsically stupid. Why? Because you say so, pipsqueak?
>If you depend on an external
> entity, whether Government, God or the Invisible Pink Unicorn, you
> only have privileges, not rights.
Rubbish. The founding fathers stated clearly, that rights are given by God
and no government can legitimetely take them away.
Man are you dumb.
BAM
Sid9
Who is your creator?
Sid9
Where did they say "rights are given by God"?
Kate
<mcca...@bellsouthblahblah.net> wrote:
No dummy, that was the answer to your first question. Or did you
forget that? I'm talking about the declaration of Indepence.
bam
Shaddap. You know nothing.
BAM
bam
You don't know what you're talking about, and secondly nobody cares. And
still, you used a term "natural right" which you apparently cannot define.
BAM
bam
Same as yours. Whatever bait you're throwing out there - you got the wrong
fish.
BAM
Sid9
Did your ever hear of John Locke and "The Rights of Man"?
I'll bet my HS graduate granddaughter heard of him.
Sid9
Here's some interesting reading on the history of "The rights of Man"
http://chnm.gmu.edu/revolution/chap3a.html
You seem to be totally ignorant of how our founders
used "The Enlightenment" to construct our constitution.
Before the Enlightenment church and government were one and the same.
Kings ruled because god gave them the right to rule (The devine right of
kings)
First came the American revolution using all they learned from the
Enlightenment severing the connection to religion..
Then came the French revolution that severed the connection between church
and state forever.
Sid9
Wrong.
My father and mother were my creators.
I don't know who created you.
Kate
<mcca...@bellsouthblahblah.net> wrote:
Still can't read I see.
And yes, you aren't worth my time. Go back to summer school little
boy.
bam
Yes, and I've also heard of Thomas Aquinas. Your point?
BAM
bam
This is just stupid. It's like trying to get 10 lbs of crap in a 5 lb bag.
You can't even spell divine.
BAM
bam
Simpleton.
BAM
DanielSan
Agreed. Sid9, that which created BAM was BAM's parents. You see, when
BAM's mother and BAM's father loved each other very, very much...
Misleart Chuff
news:LJ1Ke.4120$3p....@bignews3.bellsouth.net...
:
: "The DCLXVIth Earl of Helpus." <use...@heathens.org.uk> wrote in
message
: news:1123567335.5...@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
: >
: > bam wrote:
: >
: >> What is the source of our "rights"? God? Or the State?
: >
: > Since God doesn't exist, and the state is there to protect
privilege
: > and power, I guess we are all the source of our "rights" and are
all
: > responsible for defining them and defending them, and are all
: > responsible for the consequences of failing to do so, which is why
: > religion, being about the control of people's minds by those in
: > power,is as poisonous as it is.
:
: You deserve to be a slave.
You deserve to be dead, so what? Or were you intending to enslave
him? Xian boy, are you being home schooled? If so, that would
certainly explain your lack of knowledge, not to mention your bad
attitude.
Paul Erickson
<mcca...@bellsouthblahblah.net> wrote:
>
>"The DCLXVIth Earl of Helpus." <use...@heathens.org.uk> wrote in message
>news:1123567335.5...@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
>>
>> bam wrote:
>>
>>> What is the source of our "rights"? God? Or the State?
>>>
>>
>> Since God doesn't exist, and the state is there to protect privilege
>> and power, I guess we are all the source of our "rights" and are all
>> responsible for defining them and defending them, and are all
>> responsible for the consequences of failing to do so, which is why
>> religion, being about the control of people's minds by those in
>> power,is as poisonous as it is.
>
>You deserve to be a slave.
>
>BAM
>
You think some people deserve to be slaves?
Slobbering Skeleton
macro...@internetcds.com
God created everything but was not himself created!
The Uncreated Creator
Roger
news:1124336577.1...@g49g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
> Right on BOB.
>
> God created everything but was not himself created!
> The Uncreated Creator
He even planted fossils and other geological evidence to make it look like
life evolved.
macro...@internetcds.com
to know his thoughts. The rest are just details."
The Creationist
Einstein.
Gregory Gadow
That was to lead the faithless astray.
--
Gregory Gadow
tech...@serv.net
http://www.serv.net/~techbear
"Without faith we might relapse into scientific or rational thinking,
which leads by a slippery slope toward constitutional democracy."
- Robert Anton Wilson
Robibnikoff
<macro...@internetCDS.com> wrote in message
news:1124336577.1...@g49g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
>
> God created everything but was not himself created!
Prove it.
--
------
Robyn
Resident Witchypoo
#1557
Science doesn't burn people at the stake for disagreeing - Vic Sagerquist
macro...@internetcds.com
I don't have to prove it.
Its a fact.
Elf M. Sternberg
> I don't have to prove it.
> Its a fact.
No, it's not.