American

No, the DoI is the base on which the Constitution was framed. Federal authority is constrained by the Constitution, but individual rights are not.

__________________
It's Obama's fault!

Ikari

Was it now? So what was the first government we had after the Revolution?

The DoI listed the reasons for revolt, later other contracts established the governments we had/have.

__________________
WAR IS PEACE
FREEDOM IS SLAVERY
IGNORANCE IS STRENGTH

shuamort

What Ikari said.


Sure they are. Individual rights, like freedom to imbibe alcohol (which was later repealed) were constrained by the Constitution.

obvious Child

Alright.

And these laws are?

Because? How can you have a right when there is no one to enforce it? Is that really a right?

Let's look up the word: inalienable

Main Entry:
in·alien·able Listen to the pronunciation of inalienable
Pronunciation:
\(ˌ)i-ˈnāl-yə-nə-bəl, -ˈnā-lē-ə-nə-\
Function:
adjective
Etymology:
probably from French inaliénable, from in- + aliénable alienable
Date:
circa 1645

: incapable of being alienated, surrendered, or transferred <inalienable rights

Our rights can be surrendered and they can be alienated.

Not at all. Your logic requires far more work. God is quite irrelevant. Your stance on rights is nonsense.

__________________
"Maybe God doesn't care how you say your prayers, just as long as you say them" - Jeffery Sinclair

Kernel Sanders

When was the last time SCOTUS rejected a law based on the right to pursuit of happiness? Never, because the DoI was a letter to the King, not a legally binding basis for our nation. In part it embodies the ideals on which our nation was founded, but it has no implications for the government or the rule of law

The silenced majority

I think you're misconstruing what I mean when I point to the founders' usage of the term "creator" as it relates to the inherent rights of man. IMO they used creator to say that certain rights are between god and man; or out at least out of the hands of man.

Creator is a necessary concept to our form of government. A Constitution of largely negative rights relies on a belief that man has "God's will"/free will to do as he sees fit. That's a very Christian concept.



That's irrelevant to what our fore-fathers meant by "creator".

If there were more liberal democracies across the globe that had cultures enlightened enough to grasp the concept of God granting mankind free will & a defensible right to life liberty & the pursuit of happiness; I'd suspect there would be less violence on the whole.

Again that has nothing to do with what our Cristian and deist (Judiasm essentially (at least they talked about their deist God being the God of Abraham and Moses quite a bit)) believed.
That's not the position I'm defending anyhow.

The fore-fathers used "creator" IMO to set aside "rights" that no man or no "just consent of the governed" have the right to abridge.


Why do you keep bringing up other cultures' concept of God? That is completely irrelevant as to why the fore-fathers chose to use Creator in the DoI.

Tucker Case

I'm almost on the exact same wavelength with you on this. I think what they were saying was that teh rights were out of the hands of government. Which is not exactly the same thing, but pretty damned close. They set up that to "secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just Powers from the Consent of the Governed."

As in the primary role of the government was to prevent anyone or anything from alienating the rights of the people. The belief that rights are inherent does not require a Judeo-christian deity. My argument is not the role of government, we seem to be pretty close on that point, but the role of religion in government.




I don't agree that the Creator as you are portraying it (ie Judeo-Christian Deity) is a necessary concept to agree that rights are inherent. I believe that rights can be inborn without personally having the concept of a sentient deity (which is the Judeo-Christian concept of Creator, that there is a willful being). That which creates us does not need be a God. Nor does Nature's God (as described in the second paragraph of the DoI) necessarily mean a Creator.

The main concept that is necessary is that rights are inborn, IMO. On that we seem to agree. If the only way for a person to reach this belief is through a belief in a sentient deity, then it is what is personally necessary for them to agree with the concept, but that does not necessarily that this concept is required for that belief to be achieved. That difference seems to be what our point of contention really is. I believe we both see things very similar otherwise.




Fair enough. I see your point, now.

Also fair enough. I would argue that the concept of God is an unnecessary inclusion, but otherwise, I agree. Granted, If I could be legitimately convinced that a concept of God (as in sentient deity) is legitimately necessary to make a liberal democracy, then of course I would be for it.



I was using those as different concepts of Creator. I think the document was ambiguous enough that the concept of Creator contained is not limited to the Judeo-Christian one. All of the deities I described can be construed as the concept of "Creator". But I can see now that you were not necessarily arguing this general point when you said concept of "God", and that I misconstrued your arguments to a degree. Thus I will agree that this whole line of thought was completely irrelevant for the discussion at hand (as you had specifically meant the Judeo-Christian concept of "Creator"), but please accept that it's irrelevance was due to my misunderstanding of your point, not a desire to distract from the discussion at hand.


On this we fully agree. I believe that is exactly what they were trying to say. Although, I myself feel the use of Creator was metaphorical for those inborn traits. I don't believe that I need the concept of these rights being literally endowed by the creator to believe this statement morally correct. That is the crux of our debate. I feel that I can come to the same conclusion without the concept of God.

Take that how you will. I can see your point, but I don't think it can be true if I come to the same conclusions without having the conceptual agreement about the creator.

I believe that it may be a personal thing. What I may be able to do, another may not be able to do. I can argue that it is not necessary till I am blue in the face, but if it is necessary for you to reach that conclusion, I'm wrong,at least in your specific case. And vice versa. That means that, like anything, the personal justification to reach the all important conclusion does not particularly matter so long as the "correct" conclusion is reached in the end.

so I cannot necessarily say the concept of God is absolutely unnecessary to believe in our system of government, but you can also not say that it is absolutely necessary.

I personally feel that teh theology class should exist with all the various concepts of God as well. Then when the DoI and our government are explained, the Children should be taught that the founding fathers were comprised of multiple faiths including deism and Unitarianism, but raised primarily along the Judeo-Christian concepts of Creator and God. That would be a fair compromise as far as things go, and it also fails to establish a state religion (most important to me). It just describes the backgrounds of the founding fathers.

I don't think the concept needs to be necessarily removed, just that it is not required to reach the conclusion.

In truth, I would not even have a problem with the concept of God and the Creator being used in government if the concept were more generalized, and not inclusive of the sentient form. I don't need total removal of religion from everything. I'm OK with non-specific representations of the Ten Commandments like the tablets with an X like on the SCOTUS doors and such. I balk when things get overly specific, though. I prefer that there to be no limits of the concept of God towards the Judeo-Christian concept.

The reasons I kept bringing up the other culture's concepts was two-fold.

1. I thought we were speaking about the Concept of God in the broadest possible terms, because that is how I interpret the reference to Nature's God in the DoI. It is ambiguous and, IMO, open to interpretation.

2.. A mentioned above, I firmly believe that there should be no established state religion. I believe that means a pure separation of Church and State. I think they are both valuable entities, but each one has it's own drawbacks for teh true purposes of the other. Both religion and government exist for different, yet equally valid, reasons. It's not so much that I don't think that religion should influence politics, it's that I believe that they both do each other far more harm than good.

IMO, the two entities are like bleach and ammonia. When separate, they can both be good and useful things, but when combined they become a very deadly poison that is completely intolerable.