Missinterpreted "rights".

[Technosoul]

You all know that famous line in the Decalaration Of Independence - Where the forefathers of the USA stated that "we hold these truths to be self evident, that all men were created with the right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness".

However many people nowadays think that this is some sort of law that we must live according too, or that this saying is the foundation of USA policy.

However it was not a consitutional law at that time but a statement for the reason why they believed they were justified to declar independence form England. They felt they had some divine right to break off ties with England and to establish an independant country.

Clearly they had to kill a lot of Englishmen to become independant and so "all men" did not have the "right to life" which we now imagine they intended as some devine right of for everyone. They were just making a statement to justifiy war (if need be). "Liberty or death" - not liberty and life?

Later in section one of admendment 14 they made a law, that we have the federal right to life, property, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness, and that no state can take away those federal rights which Congress mandated. When they made it into law (later) they dropped the "creator" part found in the Declaration of Independence (and seperated state and church).

I hope I have outloned this clearly enough. So what do you think from a political perspective -

See Poll....

[Technosoul]

You can vote for more then one option in the poll.

[Chris Weimer]

I think it's more than obvious. First of all, "Creator" does not necessarily mean God (as Jefferson, Franklin, Paine, et al. were deists, and many others very liberal Christians, some were fundamental Christians but who rallied around church and state separation, and few others were somewhere in between). There's a very good reason why the 1st amendment says that Congress shall make NO laws respecting the establishment of religion, i.e. DON'T FUCK WITH RELIGION. Pure and simple.

Secondly, by necessity, when faced with death pointing a gun at you, you're going to have to fight back else you're dead. So if England would have left peacefully from the Colonies, then life and liberty would have trumped life or death. Liberty is a necessity, so pragmatically thinking, they had to fight for their lives to give the new generation a better life.

[Osborn F Enready]

Techno, I cannot help but think I am one of the ones this poll was aimed at.

I want to clarify a couple points, that give a foundation for why I believe what I do.

We know the Declaration of Independence was a uniting document to clarify the reasons and beliefs that we should become an independent nation according to the people who signed it. Their following, which as we know, was substantial enough to win the battle for independence. The size of their following is important to note, since the cost for co-operation would probably be death with any other outcome than complete success.

Now the reasons and beliefs listed in the Declaration, were the FOUNDATION for what we desired in a independent nation, enough for those people to risk EVERYTHING including life, limb and property as well as family and future. Consider how important something must be, to make you willing to lay down your life in the fight with not even a probable chance of success. It is something most people today, cannot even fathom, since luxury and distance from crisis have put it at the back of our minds. This in itself, says volumes of the cost of tyranny. It said in the voice of hundreds of thousands, "we would rather die in the fight for hopes of a better life, than succumb to your unjust rule, Mr. King."

Liberty and Justice, the main fuel for the revolution, it was the "common thread". The concepts of Liberty and Justice, of the time, are imporant to note since over time meanings, uses and contexts of words change.

Would it be Just, to fuel a movement on certain principles and then not carry over those principles to the result of that movement? I would say absolutely not. Principles are set in stone, not changing with the wind. This is why the Declaration of Independence says a lot about our motivation to create a government once independence was won, and instill those principles into that government, therefore hopefully removing the need for another movement of such proportion to effect the same ends. Their goal was to create a "common good", and by that I mean a government that people of all different ideologies, religions, trades, ethnicities could see the benefit in, or agreement with.

So the question has to arise, "what common thread do all these different types of people share?"

I think it is obvious they arrived at liberty and justice for all, and the freedom to take pursuit in that which intrests you, or profits you.

Liberty and government are the opposite of one another, so how does one instill liberty into government? They arrived at the concept of a level playing field for all, favoring or discriminating against none. A government that was as close to no government as possible, but just enough to be able to maintain cohesion to the principles that created the movement. They thought that a government of the people, for the people, by the people would be more honestly representative of the people than a seated Kind, since the people experience the true society, while the Kings throughout history have only enjoyed the spoils of society.

Justice, a tricky word. Justice is directly dependent on the values of a society. To those societies that put religion at their center, justice revolves around the values of that religion. To our society, justice revolved around the core principles of our movement to independence; equality of all men; liberty; and a disdain for tyranny in all flavors.

Another thing to note, is the clarification of where power is derived according to the Declaration of Independence.

Quote
We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.--That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, --That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness.

In this document, they placed all power in the people, to create and maintain government as well as determine if government should be changed or abolished all-together. The point is made though, that governments only purpose was to accomodate the peoples desires, and without doing this, its purpose is void. This shows that government is DEPENDENT on the LIMITATIONS of the people in its power. George Washington showed his faith in this concept when he laid down his leadership at the feet of the people after the war for independence. No time in history was this EVER done before, and it was one of the things that lent credence to this entire concept of a nation, and the true benevolence of those that earned it.

After all of this being said, it is important to note that blacks, or slaves of any type, were not thought of as "men" at this time. There was a common acceptance that whites were superior to coloreds in many circles of the time. It was also a common acceptance that women were servants to their husbands, and truly second class citizens compared to men. However, it is also important to note that the wording was not "all WHITES are created equal", it was "all men are created equal", so in no way did the constitution support or advocate slavery or womens suffrage, it was what many to believe purposely vague, in hopes of change in the future. We do not say "womankind", we say "mankind" when speaking of the human race, and it was later accepted that women are truly equal in the sense of all mankind much like the slaves were eventually freed and fought for equality under the same sentence as women which is that "all men are created equal".

The Articles of Confederation were a first attempt at embodying the heart of this movement, but fell short in many areas. Later, a secret meeting of the great men who helped us win our independence produced one of the most noble systems ever created, our Constitution. After being circulated and reviewed, it was judged to be the best concept anyone in this nation had seen put forth to acheive the goals of their original movement, which was liberty and justice for all.

As time passed, it was determined by many that the vagueries of the purpose of government, should be limited. They did this by creating a Bill of Rights, again, reinforcing the nature of the original movement, and LIMITING governments interference into the lives of private citizens. These rights were believed at the time to be cast in stone, impenetrable, walls against the possibility of tyranny over time infecting this system. In a sense they were right, since in order to achevie tyranny the government must BLATANTLY limit those rights, and at the time, people believed this alone would signal a sign of another need for revolution or overthrow of the system.

This brings us to their one shortcoming in my opinion. They failed to realize, or comprehend the effects of liberty, and the absence of the lessons learned through tyranny. They failed to recognize that complacency when rights are violated, was a possibility due to the lack of understanding of the effects.

It is this shortcoming, that has led us down the path to where we are today. We have lost sight of our goals of "common good", and have let the politics of ideology and religion infect our overall goal for liberty and justice for all. How have we done this? By allowing exactly, and I mean EXACTLY what George Washington warned us about in his final speech as President, to happen un-impeded.

The forefathers knew that losing liberty, could be a instantaneous possibility, but earning that liberty back could be a long, bloody fight costing hundreds of thousands of lives. It was in this lesson, this one sole important morsel of knowledge, that they attempted to forbid ANY violation of those sacred and vital rights by FORBIDDING government to encroach there for ANY REASON. They did this by "checks and balances" built in to the system, that were ESSENTIAL for the system to work correctly, as well as CLEAR LIMITATIONS ON GOVERNMENT through the Bill of Rights.

Over time, as the lessons of tyranny have faded with the voices of the dead, who understood it intimately, and has been surpassed by a naive mentality that has sprouted from the very security that produced it. This mentality embraces the thought that "government does at all times what is in the BEST INTREST of the people." This mentality has led to collapse or eradication of societies since the beginning of government, and it is this mentality that will lead to our failure if it is not once again put in check. The only way to do that, is to re-align the government, with the limitations, and checks and balances that are VITAL to our system, which are clearly written in the Constitution, and have been being butchered for the last 150 years.

Like any government, ours is a system born of fundamental necessities in order to work as designed. Those necessities are being removed, piecemeal, by an enemy from within, that the people cannot even recognize, as it has no face. This enemy is tyranny, but its mask is bi-partisanship.

[Osborn F Enready]

The simple solution:
Re-align the government with Constitutional limitations by removing all un-constitutional laws, practices, agencies, and systems that do not comply.

Ensure fair voting, by creating a system of voting that is representative of all people, allows all parties to campaign and be heard equally, and has a verifiable trail to prove the validity of the vote.

Very simple in theory, very complex due to the length of time the corruption has prevailed, and the roadblocks it has been allowed to assemble. The important thing to remember is this though, when confronting this realization......

“No matter how far you've gone down the wrong road, turn back.”
-Turkish proverb

The way to get where you are going, is never acheived by going about it the wrong way. Our nation has become hypocrites of their own claims.

[Prometheus]

It is obviously the first option. The declairation almost says that exactly. It declairs it's own purpose. It was a letter to britain and a justification to the rest of the world. Not some kinds of foundational treatise on governent.

[Technosoul]

Chris - I attempted to respond to your post but got a message that my response was too long, more then 1000 charcters. And you post was way to long for me to respond with just a few words, so I gave up trying to debate this matter because of the those limitations inforced on me by the king.

[Osborn F Enready]

Techno said:
Chris - I attempted to respond to your post but got a message that my response was too long, more then 1000 charcters. And you post was way to long for me to respond with just a few words, so I gave up trying to debate this matter because of the those limitations inforced on me by the king.

I say:
??????????????????????????????????????????

[Technosoul]

Osborn = opps - for some reason I thought your name was Chris.... Anywhy I wrote a reponse and when i cliced to post it this webpage said I made an error and wrote too many words. So I could not get it to post. I have no info about why that happened? I will try again.

[Osborn F Enready]

Hey Techno, what I do is after I finish typing the response, I hit preview and see how long it is. If it is too long, you can highlight the bottom half, hit CTRL C, and then backspace it once while highlighted, then hit post. Wait 30 seconds, then start a new post, hit CTRL V and the remainder of the message will appear, and you can just hit post.

[Technosoul]

I will try again Osborn

The following errors occurred when this message was submitted:
The text that you have entered is too long (15779 characters). Please shorten it to 10000 characters long.

This is what I get whenever I attempt to post my comments on this message thread. I do not know if the site monitor can shed any light on this problem. But until it is corrected I cannot debate you on this topic.

[Osborn F Enready]

Read my last post Techno, there is a 10000 character limit.

You either have to cut and paste it into two articles, or type half, enter it, then type the other half.

[Technosoul]

I do not feel that the Declaration of Indepence is foundational to national belief in anykind of God as the modern Christian churches wish to think. How can they say God endowed us with certain rights when those rights were not self-evident in England or anyplace else at the time? Those rights were endowed to us by us. And most of the freedom fighters were unhappy about undue taxes and what not, not united by some visionary idealism as we might imagine.

At first they appointed George Washington as our new King. He turned down the offer and put forth the idea of "short term leadership" based on who the people vote for. As the "we the people" came into power we seperated chruch and state.

Now bibically speaking the woman is the helpmate for the man, that is the devine right of man, to be the head of the household and to have the final say so in all matters. During the revolution (which is still happening) women protested and liberated us from those divine rights indicated in the Bible.

Bibically speaking Kings and kingdoms were the divine rights of the people, who first wanted to be free from the leadership of the Temple (Samiel). Slavery was not founded on any belief that slaves are not men or do not have souls. Slavery and the use of servents was clearly indicated in the Bible as the divine right of the master. That divine right was also overturned and so now we no longer have slavery.

This is not a country founded on the principles of Divine authority.

That is my interpretation.

Technosoul.

[Isaiah]

Quote by: Technosoul Bibically speaking Kings and kingdoms were the divine rights of the people, who first wanted to be free from the leadership of the Temple (Samiel). Slavery was not founded on any belief that slaves are not men or do not have souls. Slavery and the use of servents was clearly indicated in the Bible as the divine right of the master. That divine right was also overturned and so now we no longer have slavery.

Actually, when one examines the text more carefully, one will realize that Israel was asking for a king, because they had rejected God as their King and because they wanted to be like the nations around them. The Torah makes it clear that the nation of Israel was to be different than the nations around them. So, God’s allowing them to have a king was not a divine right, but a concession to their rebellion. Along with the concession came a prophesy that the king would enslave them and turn form God. All of which came true.

Also, I find no place where God has given, or even approved of, slavery. If you know of one I would like to see it. Remember, that Israel has done things in the pages of Scripture does not mean God told them to do so or even approved. Also, that some persons in America took parts of Scripture to defend their keeping of slaves does not mean that God approved of that either.

Quote by: Technosoul This is not a country founded on the principles of Divine authority.

The words of the Declaration, one of the most important founding documents of this country, seem to say otherwise:

“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.
WE hold these Truths to be self-evident, that all Men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness -- That to secure these Rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just Powers from the Consent of the Governed, that whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these Ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its Foundation on such Principles, and organizing its Powers in such Form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness.”

Our “station” is entitled to us by “Nature’s God”. “All men are created equal” and are endowed “by their Creator with certain inalienable rights”. The rights are from “their Creator” but the implementation and enforcement of these rights is upon “the governed”.

It may not have been the direct commandment of God, but the founders of this country definitely felt that they were acting upon divinely-given rights and that the separation from England was powered and formed by these rights, as the text itself clearly says.

The Declaration also clearly enumerates the reasons why the colonists were declaring a new nation. And most of them have nothing to do with taxation. The text is readily available on the Web for anyone wishing to actually read it.

[belverron]

Quote by: Isaiah It may not have been the direct commandment of God, but the founders of this country definitely felt that they were acting upon divinely-given rights and that the separation from England was powered and formed by these rights, as the text itself clearly says.

A few points. Many of the founders (and obviously the drafters of the Declaration) were religious men, and they weren't afraid to express that, which partially explains why freedom of religion is protected as thoroughly as it is in our country. They took great pains, however, not to allow their personal convictions, which they did feel the great majority of citizens shared, as evidenced by the language present in the Declaration, to seep into the government they created. I would also remind you that the Constitution did not come into effect until about ten years after the Declaration was written. Perhaps experience under the Articles influenced the Founders' decision not to include religious language in our constitution.

[Isaiah]

Quote by: belverron A few points. Many of the founders (and obviously the drafters of the Declaration) were religious men, and they weren't afraid to express that, which partially explains why freedom of religion is protected as thoroughly as it is in our country. They took great pains, however, not to allow their personal convictions, which they did feel the great majority of citizens shared, as evidenced by the language present in the Declaration, to seep into the government they created. I would also remind you that the Constitution did not come into effect until about ten years after the Declaration was written. Perhaps experience under the Articles influenced the Founders' decision not to include religious language in our constitution.

Well said. And I agree that the drafters of the Constitution were careful to be as neutral as possible. My points, however, were about the Declaration specifically, which the drafters of were more forward about their motivations.

I would also agree that the more neutral language of the Constitution was an effort by the drafters of it to avoid any establishment of religion or to unduly influence individuals in their choices in this matter. Your points are well put.