On 2016-02-03, Beach Runner <lowh...@gmail.com
> On Tuesday, February 2, 2016 at 2:23:42 PM UTC-8, shel...@thevillages.net
>> On 2/2/2016 3:17 PM, Giorgies E Kepipesiom wrote:
>> > On Tuesday, February 2, 2016 at 1:40:23 PM UTC-5, googy wrote:
>> >> "Our rights come from God and not from the government."
>> > From the US Declaration of Independence:
>> > "...the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and
of Nature's God entitle them
>> > "...they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable
Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness"
>> > So, it appears that rights are originally granted by God, according
to the USA founding document. The function of government is to secure
those God-given rights:
As I have posted elsewhere, the rights were not verbally given by God,
but were made part of the biological structure. The rights are from
>> > "to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men"
>> > GEK
>> Time, place, context. Yes, that is what it says. If it were written
>> today, the use of "God" would not probably not have been included.
> The founding document is indeed a wonderful document. But it is not
> a religious document, the ideas are human created and man made.
> Treating the Declaration and Constitution as anything but documents
is absurd, yet many people treat them as if they are holy.
> They were written for the most part but rich aristocrats, most of which
> owned, bought, sold and abused slaves, and more concerned with their own
> upper class aristocracy than if they were ruled by the British.
Very definitely Marxist baloney. Where do you think the thousands of
militiamen who fought the British came from? New England had few slaves,
and the town meetings did much of the legislation.
At the time of the writing of the Constitution, it was expected that
slavery would not increase, or that it might even die out. The slave
trade was only authorized until 1808. I do not believe that slavery
had been abolished in many places yet.
> The common people certainly didn't care if they were ruled by rich >
white colonists or rich white Britians.
With the ready availability of the frontier, the common people had more
power THEN than any of the Constitutional amendments have given them;
they were also far more educated according to the standards of thwir
time than our legislators are now.
The story of the American
Revolution is a fairy tale. It wasn't even won by the US, it was won
> for the most part by the French. Thanks to Ben Franklin. When the
It took the American defeat of the British at Saratoga to get the
French to agree to come in.
> British surrendered, there were more French troops on
the field of battle and the British ships were blockaded
by the French. The British general tried to surrender
to the French General, but as the ultimate humiliation,
> he was made to surrender to Washington.
The British were driven from the South by American forces,
The French Navy was important in getting the British to
surrender rather than being rescued, but the boots on the
ground were mainly American.
It > A really great history book is a Peoples History of the US, 1492 to
Current, > (which was 1980) by Howard Zinn. He was fired for writing
it, as it was controversial and not politically correct, but won the book
of the year award and is required reading in many history classes today.
It tells the
> US history from the view of the slaves, the solders, the farmers,
the workers in the factories, the common people rather than the few
rich leaders. Highly recommended.
No, it tells it from the view of Marxists. Did Adams or Franklin own
slaves? Slavery died out in New England quite soon after the Revolution.
The only reason it lasted in the South was the invention of the cotton gin,
which made large-scale processing of cotton commercially feasible.
[Further Marxist interpretations deleted.]