|
S |
M |
T |
W |
T |
F |
S |
|
|
1
|
2
|
3
|
4
|
5
|
6
|
|
7
|
8
|
9
|
10
|
11
|
12
|
13
|
|
14
|
15
|
16
|
17
|
18
|
19
|
20
|
|
21
|
22
|
23
|
24
|
25
|
26
|
27
|
|
28
|
29
|
30
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
1 members (Salopian),
211
guests, and
4
robots. |
|
Key:
Admin,
Global Mod,
Mod
|
|
|
Forums10
Topics38,458
Posts544,976
Members14,409
| |
Most Online1,258
Mar 29th, 2024
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jun 2002
Posts: 9,350
Sidelock
|
Sidelock
Joined: Jun 2002
Posts: 9,350 |
James, where does God come into the Constitution? The founding fathers had eclectic backgrounds, from deists to evangelical Christians, but were adamant on a secular state.
My references to "inalienable rights" of the Second pertain not to God, which to me is a Spirit to Love. The Second is what various jurisdictions say it is---by vote. One True God and the Second embrace passionate debates.
So does global warming which 42 per cent of Americans believe is exaggerated, according to Gallup. The National Science Foundation recently reported 25 per cent of Americans believe the sun revolves around the earth, and almost half do not believe in human evolution.
And there's always the primacy exhibited here of Clint Eastwood in the rain. So there are all kinds of belief among our members. It seems boorish to separate the true believers from the rest of us and prod us down a cattle chute. All my neighbours are Catholics; none believe in One True Church.
I think I'm probably more deist than atheist, like Jefferson! And struggling as we all do.
Last edited by King Brown; 04/15/14 10:25 AM.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Oct 2009
Posts: 6,484 Likes: 391
Sidelock
|
|
Sidelock
Joined: Oct 2009
Posts: 6,484 Likes: 391 |
King, I haven't been looking at a copy of the US Constitution. Perhaps I should have been.
I was really responding to Keith's and Stan's references to "God given" rights, as they suggested that because they thought you were an aethiest, it followed that you could not believe in the rights contained in the US Constitution. At least that's how I read it.
I was trying to point out that belief in God is not a requirement for a belief in inalienable rights.
As to your other points, belief is just that, belief. It is subjective and personal. That's why there is a different word for it than the word "fact".
When it comes to a belief in God, I have no wish to argue with anyone....who am I to say what's correct. But in the same vein, I also think "who is anyone else?"
IMHO it is an unknowable question while we are alive on this earth. And when we are no longer alive, we may, or may not, have the truth revealed.
In the meantime I'm still working on what I believe.
The world cries out for such: he is needed & needed badly- the man who can carry a message to Garcia
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jun 2002
Posts: 9,350
Sidelock
|
|
Sidelock
Joined: Jun 2002
Posts: 9,350 |
A conservative and liberal in the same boat, god love us!
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Feb 2009
Posts: 7,463 Likes: 212
Sidelock
|
|
Sidelock
Joined: Feb 2009
Posts: 7,463 Likes: 212 |
....I have the inalienable right to defend myself simply by being alive on this earth.
If I believe in God it follows that God gave me that right, by His involvement in my creation. At the same time, if I don't believe in God, I have that natural right, as do all animals. It's the nature of life on Earth.
The fact that the US Constitution describes those rights as "God given" doesn't, in itself, make that statement true. If it were true, it would be because of God, not because of what the authors of your constitution wrote.
And if it is not true, then it's just not true.
You don't need to be a believer to have rights that existed before government was invented. I dunno cback. In the US, one is supposed to be a citizen to have rights that did not exist prior to that government creating them. I don't understand why those rights can't be based on biblical concepts rather than evolutionary survival of the fittest ideas. Using things like the ten commandments for guidance have no gray area with respect to some loss of theoretical rights that the colonists clearly didn't have prior, and once accepted no one man can supersede. Or, at least they're not supposed to. In no way does the US Constitution say that one has to be a believer in order to be protected by it's rights. Lucky there're enough believers around to remind us that the Constitution applies to all. If you want the comfort of an inalienable right, it may not be as simple as being alive on earth. I'd think the old real estate saying, location location location.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Feb 2005
Posts: 7,438
Sidelock
|
|
OP
Sidelock
Joined: Feb 2005
Posts: 7,438 |
Jim, you mention militia, singular. Was there more than one militia, that is, as an organized group, or is a militia comprised of protestors joining together to right a perceived wrong? Militia hereabouts is civilian soldiers. Spoken just like another Libtard former President Clinton: "I guess it depends upon what your definition of is is." Pure obfuscation. The fundamental fact that a group of common citizens came together as a militia and stood down a bunch of jack booted government thugs is ignored by King Brown. The fact that they took the opportunity to pray before doing so is of course anathema to him.
The 2nd Amendment IS an unalienable right.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Feb 2008
Posts: 11,337 Likes: 389
Sidelock
|
|
Sidelock
Joined: Feb 2008
Posts: 11,337 Likes: 389 |
My references to "inalienable rights" of the Second pertain not to God, which to me is a Spirit to Love. The Second is what various jurisdictions say it is---by vote. One True God and the Second embrace passionate debates. Again, King Brown shows his ignorance which leads to his bias. The Second Amendment says exactly what it says, and it means what it says until some person or entity violates it and another person or entity goes to the courts for relief and clarification. The Supreme Court is the ultimate interpreter and this is why it is so important to elect a president who will not stack the Supreme Court with anti-gun nominees as Obama has done. The infringements we see in various jurisdictions--- by vote, were done by Liberal Democrats in almost all cases. These politicians who voted to infringe upon the Second were elected by Libtards like King. People like him are directly to blame for the infringements we see in various locales. King is part of the problem, and his so-called solutions are a sure path to further erosion of our rights. King thinks and says here that the Second is open to passionate debate. He is part of the Liberal Progressive crowd that sees our Constitution as a "living document" subject to change. I think King should concentrate on Gun Rights in Canada... where he has never lifted a finger to help. He sure is no help to us.
A true sign of mental illness is any gun owner who would vote for an Anti-Gunner like Joe Biden.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Oct 2009
Posts: 6,484 Likes: 391
Sidelock
|
|
Sidelock
Joined: Oct 2009
Posts: 6,484 Likes: 391 |
Craig, I come at this not so much from the standpoint of evolutionist survival of fittest theory but the difference between English Common Law vs Jeffersonian/Napoleanic Law. In one, we accede rights to the state, in the other, the state gives you the rights.
I happen to subscribe to the former.
At no point have I said the rights we choose to protect and/or exercise can't or shouldn't be based on Biblical concepts, because I happen to believe that there is remarkable commonality between the Biblical concepts of right and wrong etc and what rights/freedoms we need to give up in order to live together in a society successfully.
Last edited by canvasback; 04/15/14 12:48 PM. Reason: Spelling
The world cries out for such: he is needed & needed badly- the man who can carry a message to Garcia
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Oct 2009
Posts: 6,484 Likes: 391
Sidelock
|
|
Sidelock
Joined: Oct 2009
Posts: 6,484 Likes: 391 |
Craig, do you really want to allow the definition and perpetuation of your rights by a body so aptly described by Jim as a bunch of jack booted thugs? When we know how common the jack booted thugs can be in governments around the world and through out history.
The action of this rancher and those citizens who stood by him demonstrate clearly, to me, that the origins of rights don't start with any government. They may start with God, they may start within each of us, but they don't start with the state.
The world cries out for such: he is needed & needed badly- the man who can carry a message to Garcia
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Feb 2005
Posts: 7,438
Sidelock
|
|
OP
Sidelock
Joined: Feb 2005
Posts: 7,438 |
Quote:
"The infringements we see in various jurisdictions--- by vote, were done by Liberal Democrats in almost all cases. These politicians who voted to infringe upon the Second were elected by Libtards like King. People like him are directly to blame for the infringements we see in various locales. King is part of the problem, and his so-called solutions are a sure path to further erosion of our rights. King thinks and says here that the Second is open to passionate debate. He is part of the Liberal Progressive crowd that sees our Constitution as a "living document" subject to change."
And I may add that the inane belief on the part of Libard Democrats that you can solve what are generally deep seated social problems in big Cities by attempting to regulate inanimate objects shows just how bankrupt their beliefs are.
But if you're a Libtard politician it's always easier to attack a symptom rather then the real problem.
Jim
The 2nd Amendment IS an unalienable right.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Oct 2009
Posts: 6,484 Likes: 391
Sidelock
|
|
Sidelock
Joined: Oct 2009
Posts: 6,484 Likes: 391 |
My references to "inalienable rights" of the Second pertain not to God, which to me is a Spirit to Love. The Second is what various jurisdictions say it is---by vote. One True God and the Second embrace passionate debates. Again, King Brown shows his ignorance which leads to his bias. The Second Amendment says exactly what it says, and it means what it says until some person or entity violates it and another person or entity goes to the courts for relief and clarification. The Supreme Court is the ultimate interpreter and this is why it is so important to elect a president who will not stack the Supreme Court with anti-gun nominees as Obama has done. The infringements we see in various jurisdictions--- by vote, were done by Liberal Democrats in almost all cases. These politicians who voted to infringe upon the Second were elected by Libtards like King. People like him are directly to blame for the infringements we see in various locales. King is part of the problem, and his so-called solutions are a sure path to further erosion of our rights. King thinks and says here that the Second is open to passionate debate. He is part of the Liberal Progressive crowd that sees our Constitution as a "living document" subject to change. I think King should concentrate on Gun Rights in Canada... where he has never lifted a finger to help. He sure is no help to us. Keith, you can wish for things but that doesn't make them true. On one hand you say it's important to elect a president that doesn't stack the SC. On the other hand you say it's the Liberal Progressive crowd that thinks of the Constitution as a living document. The reality is that it IS a living document, subject to interpretation by all points of the political spectrum. Otherwise you would be unconcerned, for this issue, in the make up of the SC. Otherwise a Liberal Progressive SC couldn't interpret the Constitution in a way you/we are uncomfortable with and oppose. We might wish that it wasn't, but that doesn't make it so.
The world cries out for such: he is needed & needed badly- the man who can carry a message to Garcia
|
|
|
|
|
