• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

The Secular Left Isn't Compatible with the Declaration of Independence

LowDown

LowDown

Curmudgeon
DP Veteran
Joined
Jul 19, 2012
Messages
14,185
Reaction score
8,768
Location
Houston
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Libertarian
Calvin Coolidge wrote:

It was not because it was proposed to establish a new nation, but because it was proposed to establish a nation on new principles, that July 4, 1776, has come to be regarded as one of the greatest days in history. Great ideas do not burst upon the world unannounced. They are reached by a gradual development over a length of time usually proportionate to their importance. This is especially true of the principles laid down in the Declaration of Independence. Three very definite propositions were set out in its preamble regarding the nature of mankind and therefore of government. These were the doctrine that all men are created equal, that they are endowed with certain inalienable rights, and that therefore the source of the just powers of government must be derived from the consent of the governed.

If no one is to be accounted as born into a superior station, if there is to be no ruling class, and if all possess rights which can neither be bartered away nor taken from them by any earthly power, it follows as a matter of course that the practical authority of the Government has to rest on the consent of the governed.
Click to expand...

But if one does not believe that there is any superior authority to endow men with inalienable rights, then one believes that there is no such thing as an inalienable right. So therefore rights are not granted by God but by government, and they can therefore always be taken away by the government. Therefore the authority of the government does not rest on the consent of the government, but on who can get their boots on the people's necks.

The idea of the Declaration of Independence is that any government that tries to strip people of those rights is not legitimate, and the people have the right to overthrow it. The history of the left is clear -- they have never had any regard for civil rights because they hold nothing sacred. For them all that matters is who can gain and maintain power. They will preach civil rights until they have overwhelming power, then they cast concern for civil rights aside.
 
LowDown said:
Calvin Coolidge wrote:



But if one does not believe that there is any superior authority to endow men with inalienable rights, then one believes that there is no such thing as an inalienable right. So therefore rights are not granted by God but by government, and they can therefore always be taken away by the government. Therefore the authority of the government does not rest on the consent of the government, but on who can get their boots on the people's necks.

The idea of the Declaration of Independence is that any government that tries to strip people of those rights is not legitimate, and the people have the right to overthrow it. The history of the left is clear -- they have never had any regard for civil rights because they hold nothing sacred. For them all that matters is who can gain and maintain power. They will preach civil rights until they have overwhelming power, then they cast concern for civil rights aside.
Click to expand...


your post has serious rational problems, holy crap. next you will assert that groping women is ok.
 
The erosion of freedoms isn't exclusive to one side of the political spectrum.
 
LowDown said:
Calvin Coolidge wrote:



But if one does not believe that there is any superior authority to endow men with inalienable rights, then one believes that there is no such thing as an inalienable right. So therefore rights are not granted by God but by government, and they can therefore always be taken away by the government. Therefore the authority of the government does not rest on the consent of the government, but on who can get their boots on the people's necks.

The idea of the Declaration of Independence is that any government that tries to strip people of those rights is not legitimate, and the people have the right to overthrow it. The history of the left is clear -- they have never had any regard for civil rights because they hold nothing sacred. For them all that matters is who can gain and maintain power. They will preach civil rights until they have overwhelming power, then they cast concern for civil rights aside.
Click to expand...

I am afraid that is close to the truth. Secular statism's believers will not admit this, though. But it is probably the driving force behind the present breakdown of societal consensus.
 
A couple of thoughts;

Secular doesn’t necessarily mean not believing in a god, it just means not relating to religion. You can have secular theists and non-secular atheists. The political left/right divisions (however you’re defining them today) seem entirely irrelevant to the topic of discussion.

I don’t see how not believing in a singular superior being automatically means not believing in the existence of inalienable rights and I don’t see why believing in such a being who grants us fundamental rights makes those rights inalienable. Surely an all-powerful god could just take them away if they wanted to?

Anyway, regardless of whether there are a set of fundamental rights that are philosophically inalienable, that doesn’t stop the strong denying them to the weak, including via government, regardless of how high-minded the principles that government may be based on. We can assert a principle of our government working by the consent of the governed but the officers of that government are still perfectly capable of breaking that consent even if we actually have inalienable rights stating that they shouldn’t.
 
katzgar said:
your post has serious rational problems, holy crap. next you will assert that groping women is ok.
Click to expand...

Wrong. The modern use of the term "men" in this context means men and women, and children for that matter.
 
IMO there are multiple levels of fail & naivety in both the words of Coolidge & the words of the OP

happy 4th ........ and Happy B-Day CC, wherever U R ............
 
Last edited:
" The Secular Left Isn't Compatible with the Declaration of Independence "
Click to expand...
Ironic, but historically preposterous and ignorant.
Thomas Jefferson wrote the rough draft of the DOI; John Adams and Ben Franklin were the editors.
Jefferson originally wrote:
"We hold these truths to be sacred and undeniable ..." Jefferson
Franklin expresses his reservation about that phrasing to Jefferson. Franklin explained; we're founding a new country. It's not based on assertions of religion. It's based on assertions of reason. We should reflect that religious tolerance in this writing.
source: Walter Isaacson: author of: Benjamin Franklin: An American Life
Click to expand...
Happy Independence Day to one and all.
 
LowDown said:
Calvin Coolidge wrote:



But if one does not believe that there is any superior authority to endow men with inalienable rights, then one believes that there is no such thing as an inalienable right. So therefore rights are not granted by God but by government, and they can therefore always be taken away by the government. Therefore the authority of the government does not rest on the consent of the government, but on who can get their boots on the people's necks.

The idea of the Declaration of Independence is that any government that tries to strip people of those rights is not legitimate, and the people have the right to overthrow it. The history of the left is clear -- they have never had any regard for civil rights because they hold nothing sacred. For them all that matters is who can gain and maintain power. They will preach civil rights until they have overwhelming power, then they cast concern for civil rights aside.
Click to expand...

The only thing I would like to add to this, is that the concept of inalienable or natural rights is not dependent on religion in any way. In fact the concept of God is an individual perception, and is different for different people. To a Pantheist, the entire Universe is God and therefore their rights are given by nature itself.

The fact is that rights only exist to the degree we are willing as citizens to stand up and fight for them. The reason we are losing our rights today is that we are willing to sell our freedom for comfort, and entertainment. The Romans figured this out long ago, that they could placate the masses with bread and circuses, and that they would hesitate to stand for morals when they were being bribed and seduced by something for nothing...
 
LowDown said:
But if one does not believe that there is any superior authority to endow men with inalienable rights, then one believes that there is no such thing as an inalienable right. So therefore rights are not granted by God but by government, and they can therefore always be taken away by the government. Therefore the authority of the government does not rest on the consent of the government, but on who can get their boots on the people's necks.
The idea of the Declaration of Independence is that any government that tries to strip people of those rights is not legitimate, and the people have the right to overthrow it. The history of the left is clear -- they have never had any regard for civil rights because they hold nothing sacred. For them all that matters is who can gain and maintain power. They will preach civil rights until they have overwhelming power, then they cast concern for civil rights aside.
Click to expand...

Obviously, God does not exist (ref. The God Delusion and Rational Gaudism, Sections 2.3, 9.2, 9.2.1). But The Declaration of Independence does not use the word "God", but "Creator", matching the fact that e.g. Thomas Jefferson did not believe in the Abrahamic God. The Creator of human beings is Nature through biological evolution. Thus, our inalienable rights are nature-given in the sense that they are granted by the fundamental nature of the individual human being, as explained by Rational Gaudism, Chapter 4 (and further Ch. 5-7).
 
LowDown said:
Calvin Coolidge wrote:



But if one does not believe that there is any superior authority to endow men with inalienable rights, then one believes that there is no such thing as an inalienable right. So therefore rights are not granted by God but by government, and they can therefore always be taken away by the government. Therefore the authority of the government does not rest on the consent of the government, but on who can get their boots on the people's necks.

The idea of the Declaration of Independence is that any government that tries to strip people of those rights is not legitimate, and the people have the right to overthrow it. The history of the left is clear -- they have never had any regard for civil rights because they hold nothing sacred. For them all that matters is who can gain and maintain power. They will preach civil rights until they have overwhelming power, then they cast concern for civil rights aside.
Click to expand...

It was and still is the governed that creates rights. BTW a secular government has zero to do with the left.
 
Gaudius said:
Obviously, God does not exist (ref. The God Delusion and Rational Gaudism, Sections 2.3, 9.2, 9.2.1). But The Declaration of Independence does not use the word "God", but "Creator", matching the fact that e.g. Thomas Jefferson did not believe in the Abrahamic God. The Creator of human beings is Nature through biological evolution. Thus, our inalienable rights are nature-given in the sense that they are granted by the fundamental nature of the individual human being, as explained by Rational Gaudism, Chapter 4 (and further Ch. 5-7).
Click to expand...

Correct, the very thing that gave us the rights, was our ability to conceive of the concept to begin with.
 
jd!
#11 is a SUPERB Independence Day post. Thank you manifold!

Calvin Coolidge wrote:
"But if one does not believe that there is any superior authority to endow men with inalienable rights, then one believes that there is no such thing as an inalienable right." #11
Click to expand...
Cal, bud-A! You're a jake ice!!

Your simpleminded formulation ignores the obvious.
That while rights if not accorded by authority might be questioned, legitimacy of infringing or usurping those rights must be held to the same standard.

I do hope that Jefferson's formulation of "Creator endowed" rights in the DOI (Happy Independence Day !!) was pantheist (they might have called it "Deist" in the 18th Century) in perspective.

But if I spend a few hours whittling a wooden spoon to eat my gruel, what right has anyone else to take it from me? It's no more complicated than this:
"He that would make his own liberty secure, must guard even his enemy from oppression; for if he violates this duty, he establishes a precedent that will reach to himself." Thomas Paine
Click to expand...
We are obliged if not compelled to honor the rights of others, if for no other reason than to preserve our own. It's the difference between civilization and anarchy, society and a lawless frontier.
"The fact is that rights only exist to the degree we are willing as citizens to stand up and fight for them." jd
Click to expand...
Right angles (90 degree angles) may not exist in nature, even if prominently featured in architecture.
But they are implied, as the orthogonal vectors of horizontal and vertical.
To be clear, the Chevy Vega was a human INVENTION. Horizontal and vertical are human DISCOVERIES.
"The reason we are losing our rights today is that we are willing to sell our freedom for comfort" jd
Click to expand...
"Any society that would give up a little liberty to gain a little security will deserve neither and lose both."
Thomas Jefferson to James Madison
"... the concept of inalienable or natural rights is not dependent on religion in any way. In fact the concept of God is an individual perception, and is different for different people. To a Pantheist, the entire Universe is God and therefore their rights are given by nature itself." jdog 17/07/04
Click to expand...
Incandescently brilliant jd. Many many thanks!!
 
LowDown said:
Calvin Coolidge wrote:



But if one does not believe that there is any superior authority to endow men with inalienable rights, then one believes that there is no such thing as an inalienable right. So therefore rights are not granted by God but by government, and they can therefore always be taken away by the government. Therefore the authority of the government does not rest on the consent of the government, but on who can get their boots on the people's necks.

The idea of the Declaration of Independence is that any government that tries to strip people of those rights is not legitimate, and the people have the right to overthrow it. The history of the left is clear -- they have never had any regard for civil rights because they hold nothing sacred. For them all that matters is who can gain and maintain power. They will preach civil rights until they have overwhelming power, then they cast concern for civil rights aside.
Click to expand...

On this 4th of July, I like to think back on what makes America great, and what those before us sacrificed to make this country, and to defend it. During the Revolutionary war, approximately 200,000 served in the army or militia and maybe 60,000 in the navy and as privateers. They went through at times incredible hardships, lost their lives, their limbs. None of them were perfect, Washington was prone to petty jealousies and self interest over national interest, there were far too many cases of atrocities committed, slaughters and rapes. But out of the imperfection rose greatness. A great country, great men and women. This has been a pattern throughout our nation's history, imperfect men who manage to achieve greatness. Grant was a drunk, and a pain in the ass, but he won the Civil War and brought out country together again. Patton was an asshole who made things as hard as possible for his men, but not many understood the mobile style of war better than he did. The list goes on and on.

For me, my bit of service was the first Gulf War, where I was never really at risk myself, but did my part. I did not at the time think the war was a good idea, and I still have questions about it, though I am probably more in favor ot it than opposed now. But the person we elected pointed and said do this, and so we did. And people I knew lost their lives doing it. I spent too many months in the ungodly heat supporting that war, parked in the gulf, launching aircraft and getting that weird tan all of us on the flight deck got(pale forehead and around the eyes, dark as hell cheeks and chin). My service of my country was a small thing, but I take alot of pride in it.

Today, I would like to celebrate the contribution to America made by Lowdown, who sacrificed a couple minutes of his holiday to cut and past a quote, in his personnel effort to make America less than it can be. Lowdown does not like a large portion of this country, cannot abide it's existence. Any one who thinks differently than him is an enemy(which is weird, since how he thinks is that liberals are bad, that is his whole ideology). And so he tries to divide the country, and explain why those who disagree with him are somehow lesser Americans.

Thankfully, America is a great country, and we have been through much worse during our time. His efforts cannot harm America, we are stronger and better than that. And ironically, America has room for the Lowdowns. They are not bad people, they are Americans too. Even when they make their mistakes, they are still a part of us. I am not going to, on this 4th of July, a day designated to celebrate America, work to divide us, I am going to accept one and all, because to do less is simply not acceptable to me.
 
Redress said:
On this 4th of July, I like to think back on what makes America great, and what those before us sacrificed to make this country, and to defend it. During the Revolutionary war, approximately 200,000 served in the army or militia and maybe 60,000 in the navy and as privateers. They went through at times incredible hardships, lost their lives, their limbs. None of them were perfect, Washington was prone to petty jealousies and self interest over national interest, there were far too many cases of atrocities committed, slaughters and rapes. But out of the imperfection rose greatness. A great country, great men and women. This has been a pattern throughout our nation's history, imperfect men who manage to achieve greatness. Grant was a drunk, and a pain in the ass, but he won the Civil War and brought out country together again. Patton was an asshole who made things as hard as possible for his men, but not many understood the mobile style of war better than he did. The list goes on and on.

For me, my bit of service was the first Gulf War, where I was never really at risk myself, but did my part. I did not at the time think the war was a good idea, and I still have questions about it, though I am probably more in favor ot it than opposed now. But the person we elected pointed and said do this, and so we did. And people I knew lost their lives doing it. I spent too many months in the ungodly heat supporting that war, parked in the gulf, launching aircraft and getting that weird tan all of us on the flight deck got(pale forehead and around the eyes, dark as hell cheeks and chin). My service of my country was a small thing, but I take alot of pride in it.

Today, I would like to celebrate the contribution to America made by Lowdown, who sacrificed a couple minutes of his holiday to cut and past a quote, in his personnel effort to make America less than it can be. Lowdown does not like a large portion of this country, cannot abide it's existence. Any one who thinks differently than him is an enemy(which is weird, since how he thinks is that liberals are bad, that is his whole ideology). And so he tries to divide the country, and explain why those who disagree with him are somehow lesser Americans.

Thankfully, America is a great country, and we have been through much worse during our time. His efforts cannot harm America, we are stronger and better than that. And ironically, America has room for the Lowdowns. They are not bad people, they are Americans too. Even when they make their mistakes, they are still a part of us. I am not going to, on this 4th of July, a day designated to celebrate America, work to divide us, I am going to accept one and all, because to do less is simply not acceptable to me.
Click to expand...

Good post on this July 4th.

IMO you shouldn't have wasted it on a LowDown troll thread, but here's a bump in the hope it leads others to read it (your post, not LowDown's tripe).

Oh, and thank you for your service to this great nation.:peace
 
LowDown said:
Calvin Coolidge wrote:



But if one does not believe that there is any superior authority to endow men with inalienable rights, then one believes that there is no such thing as an inalienable right. So therefore rights are not granted by God but by government, and they can therefore always be taken away by the government. Therefore the authority of the government does not rest on the consent of the government, but on who can get their boots on the people's necks.

The idea of the Declaration of Independence is that any government that tries to strip people of those rights is not legitimate, and the people have the right to overthrow it. The history of the left is clear -- they have never had any regard for civil rights because they hold nothing sacred. For them all that matters is who can gain and maintain power. They will preach civil rights until they have overwhelming power, then they cast concern for civil rights aside.
Click to expand...
Secularism has nothing to do with believing your gov has more rights over your life than you do. Secularism does not conflict with the constitution. I am a limited gov secularist. While I dont believe my rights are derived from a diety, I do believe in the principle of being free. I believe my authority to live free is higher than the govs authority to control me.

Sent from my SM-T800 using Tapatalk
 
Redress said:
On this 4th of July, I like to think back on what makes America great, and what those before us sacrificed to make this country, and to defend it."
Click to expand...
Most of that was before Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, Obamacare, Food Stamps, etc.

In the 1950s U.S. citizens were admired for our self-reliance and rugged individualism.
But insidiously United States governments rather than making us more self-reliant, are making us more dependent upon government.

It is monumentally disempowering, and is changing who we are as a People.
"During the Revolutionary war, approximately 200,000 served in the army or militia and maybe 60,000 in the navy and as privateers." Rr
Click to expand...
Not sure what you have in mind.
But my source lists over half a million dead in the War of Northern Aggression.

558,052 died for freedom in the Civil War

Difficult to imagine how more combatants could have died, than served.
 
Redress said:
On this 4th of July, I like to think back on what makes America great, and what those before us sacrificed to make this country, and to defend it. During the Revolutionary war, approximately 200,000 served in the army or militia and maybe 60,000 in the navy and as privateers. They went through at times incredible hardships, lost their lives, their limbs. None of them were perfect, Washington was prone to petty jealousies and self interest over national interest, there were far too many cases of atrocities committed, slaughters and rapes. But out of the imperfection rose greatness. A great country, great men and women. This has been a pattern throughout our nation's history, imperfect men who manage to achieve greatness. Grant was a drunk, and a pain in the ass, but he won the Civil War and brought out country together again. Patton was an asshole who made things as hard as possible for his men, but not many understood the mobile style of war better than he did. The list goes on and on.

For me, my bit of service was the first Gulf War, where I was never really at risk myself, but did my part. I did not at the time think the war was a good idea, and I still have questions about it, though I am probably more in favor ot it than opposed now. But the person we elected pointed and said do this, and so we did. And people I knew lost their lives doing it. I spent too many months in the ungodly heat supporting that war, parked in the gulf, launching aircraft and getting that weird tan all of us on the flight deck got(pale forehead and around the eyes, dark as hell cheeks and chin). My service of my country was a small thing, but I take alot of pride in it.

Today, I would like to celebrate the contribution to America made by Lowdown, who sacrificed a couple minutes of his holiday to cut and past a quote, in his personnel effort to make America less than it can be. Lowdown does not like a large portion of this country, cannot abide it's existence. Any one who thinks differently than him is an enemy(which is weird, since how he thinks is that liberals are bad, that is his whole ideology). And so he tries to divide the country, and explain why those who disagree with him are somehow lesser Americans.

Thankfully, America is a great country, and we have been through much worse during our time. His efforts cannot harm America, we are stronger and better than that. And ironically, America has room for the Lowdowns. They are not bad people, they are Americans too. Even when they make their mistakes, they are still a part of us. I am not going to, on this 4th of July, a day designated to celebrate America, work to divide us, I am going to accept one and all, because to do less is simply not acceptable to me.
Click to expand...

Liberals are not bad, they are ignorant, it is their ideology which is evil and desecrates mankind.
 
"Liberals are not bad, they are ignorant, it is their ideology which is evil and desecrates mankind." jd #21
Click to expand...
This is by dictionary definition wrong.
liberal

liberal (lîb´er-el, lîb´rel) adjective
Abbr. lib.
1.a. Not limited to or by established, traditional, orthodox, or authoritarian attitudes, views, or dogmas; free from bigotry. b. Favoring proposals for reform, open to new ideas for progress, and tolerant of the ideas and behavior of others; broad-minded. c. Of, relating to, or characteristic of liberalism. d. Liberal
Abbr. Lib. Of, designating, or characteristic of a political party founded on or associated with principles of social and political liberalism, especially in Great Britain, Canada, and the United States.
2.a. Tending to give freely; generous: a liberal benefactor. b. Generous in amount; ample: a liberal serving of potatoes.
3.Not strict or literal; loose or approximate: a liberal translation.
4.Of, relating to, or based on the traditional arts and sciences of a college or university curriculum: a liberal education.
5.a. Archaic. Permissible or appropriate for a person of free birth; befitting a lady or gentleman. b. Obsolete. Morally unrestrained; licentious.

noun
1.A person with liberal ideas or opinions.
2. LiberalAbbr. Lib. A member of a Liberal political party.

[Middle English, generous, from Old French, from Latin lìberâlis, from lìber, free.]
- lib´erally adverb
- lib´eralness noun

Synonyms: liberal, bounteous, bountiful, freehanded, generous, handsome, munificent, openhanded. The central meaning shared by these adjectives is "willing or marked by a willingness to give unstintingly": a liberal backer of the arts; a bounteous feast; bountiful compliments; a freehanded host; a generous donation; a handsome offer; a munificent gift; a fond and openhanded grandfather. See also synonyms at broad-minded.
Antonyms: stingy.

Excerpted from The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language, Third Edition © 1996 by Houghton Mifflin Company. Electronic version licensed from INSO Corporation; further reproduction and distribution in accordance with the Copyright Law of the United States. All rights reserved.
Click to expand...
It is conservatives whose perspective is confined to convention, again by dictionary definition.

So apart from the fact that you have it PRECISELY backward, have a happy Independence Day.
 
LowDown said:
The idea of the Declaration of Independence is that any government that tries to strip people of those rights is not legitimate, and the people have the right to overthrow it. The history of the left is clear -- they have never had any regard for civil rights because they hold nothing sacred. For them all that matters is who can gain and maintain power. They will preach civil rights until they have overwhelming power, then they cast concern for civil rights aside.
Click to expand...

What civil rights concern do you have in overthrowing the government? Will the loss of life be less in your conservative coup than in a liberal power struggle? Will the overthrow be in respect to the inalienable rights of those who happen to disagree with you?

One needn't scratch too much beneath the surface to find a hypocritical, almost glaringly stupid argument at the core of this thread. The fact is, you quoted Coolidge and none of the foundational propositions of the "nature of man" were that god made us. Not one of them were wasted on such nonsense.

It is only human power that we can harness. Coolidge is talking about the evolution of ideas and the current state of thought. What a curious irony that in the name of truth you would insert an invisible god, via invisible words upon the very document that ignores Him. Pathetic.
 
sear said:
This is by dictionary definition wrong.

It is conservatives whose perspective is confined to convention, again by dictionary definition.

So apart from the fact that you have it PRECISELY backward, have a happy Independence Day.
Click to expand...

Who wrote the dictionary? liberals.... more lies and deceit.

In fact Independence day itself it an affront to liberalism. The founders on this date declared their independence from subserviently to a government which claimed to have authority over them. They rejected the notion that government was superior to the individual and created the society in which government was subservient to the people and where every man had the rights of a king.

Liberalism stands for subservience of the citizen to the government. It stands for the repression of individual rights and the assentation of the government as the superior to the citizen.

Enjoy your independence day!
 
If institutions of law and government were to be taken away, our conservative friends' "inalienable" rights would be alienable so fast their heads would spin.

So happy Independence Day to you too. We got your back.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom