So, I guess you’re not going to be voting for any Christians either?
That makes no sense. No matter where they came from, they can be taken away, whether written down by humans, gods or sentient squirrels. God isn’t the one enforcing laws; people are, including the ones that guarantee our rights.
I also find that enormously insulting to all the people who have fought and died for their rights over the centuries; handing the credit to your God spits on all of them.
As well, they are just as arbitrary handed down by a god as they would be from us mere mortals.
Finally, if you “believe in a higher power”, you are religious. Period.
Let’s start with this:
What do you think the passage you quoted— "We hold these truths to be “self-evident,”—means? To what do you think “these truths” refers? It seems quite obvious to me that they refer to five main things:
- 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…
- That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it…
So we have five things that are “self-evident”. Number 1 says “created equal”. Now men, never mind women, are not created equal in a physical sense, or in a mental one, so it must be refering to something else. But if the passage appeared in isolation I think you would be correct in saying that equality is simply “self-evident”. But it doesn’t. It is preceeded by “… the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature’s God entitle them…”
So we have a God, and this God entitles people to enjoy a separate and equal station. Reading Number 1 after that, it seems to me that the meaning is that equality, both on the individual and “national” level are God-given.
Number 2 states, unequivocally, that there is a Creator and that he has endowed us with certain inalienable rights, which include those mentioned in Number 3. Remember, #3 is not a comprehensive list. Numbers 4 and 5 are stylistically linked back to either “these things that are self-evident” or “certain unalienable rights”. It is unclear, until we look back and take everything in context.
Additionally, the end of #5, “…as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness.” talks about “happiness”, one the rights the pursuit thereof is clearly expressed as God-given in #s 2 and 3.
If this is confusing, I apologize. But I tried err on the side of a more complete explanation.
Wrong. They can be ignored, dishonored, or trampled upon, but they are part of man.
Coming from you this is beyond laughable. You trying to stick up for people who carried guns and killed other people. Precious.
I’m sure they would love to hear that as a great majority of them, I’d say, fought for them because they believe them to be derived from God.
Can you not see that IF they are handed down from God that they are not arbitrary. Concentrate on the “if” for a second. Or do you also believe that when a tiger comes into this world that his stripes are arbitrary?
As far as the last point, I’ve explained this numerous times before, if you’re interested enough to start foaming, go look it up. And, as in almost any discussion concerning religion, you are wrong. Just as wrong as when you claim Communism is a religion.
Why not? I don’t recall a large portion of them swearing death to Americans. And some of them suceeding.
Define “large portion.” I don’t hear very many Christians denouncing the Christians who terrorize people.
Not isolated groups. Do you not recall the TV coverage of Muslim throngs in the Middle East celebrating after 9/11?
I recall my Muslim neighbors decrying the event. I recall my Muslim classmates praying that such a terrible thing never happens again. I also recall some of the TV coverage to which you refer. Exactly how big a percentage of the billion or so Muslims did that TV camera manage to show?
I also recall a recent poll which showed that more than half the people surveyed in places like Egypt and Morocco refused to believe that 9-11 was the work of Arab terrorists. Please do understand that there are millions of Muslims around the world, and some in this country, who would dearly love to kill you and believe that God has given them the right to do so.
Clearly, he was bluffing.
Not that I think our rights need divine sanction to be valid.
Yes, of course, because what it really is is magic. Anyone who prefers scientific investigation over making up magical explanations is clearly insane.
And that makes them different from Christians how?
Silly me. I thought there were about a billion Muslims around the world. Is it a majority of them who think that God has given them the right to kill me? I seriously doubt it. Until you provide some cite for that assertion, I’ll maintain my doubts.
On the other hand, I’ve met quite a few “lovely Christian people” who think they have every right in the world–given to them by God, of course–to tell me that I’m going to Hell. Some of them have also expressed support of that nutjob who murdered a doctor who performed abortions. Now, I don’t believe for a minute that they represent the majority of Christians.
Do you see my point now?
The DOI is irrelevant to US law. The Constitution makes no reference to God and most of the Founding Fathers did not believe in a God who was active in the universe. The COTUS is in no way based on any religious precepts.
Prove it, and prove that it matters. What matters are the facts on the ground; it doesn’t matter it I have the “right” to be free if I’m in a dungeon cell.
Ah yes; because I oppose a war of conquest by America, I must oppose people who fight against such wars, and tyrants in general. I have said in the past that I approve of the Iraqis who kill foreign soldiers, and regard it as their patriotic duty to kill as many as possible. I’m not a pacifist.
Ridiculous. I seriously doubt that most cared what they derived from.
Why is God’s opinion relevant ? A declaration by a god is just as arbitrary as one of mine or yours.
No, that’s evolution; it’s functional, not philosophical.
And your proof of this is ?
Ah, but you’re only insane if most people diagree with you.
So, believing in invisible men in the sky who control everything is only crazy if it’s unusual. I do find it telling that a special exception is made for religion.
And some held candlelight vigils instead. Not to mention, has it occurred to you they may hate us because we’ve hurt them, and not because of religion ? Given our behavior, the whole world could suddenly become atheist or Christian or otherwise religiously unified, and they’d still hate us. The rhetoric would change, that’s all.
I don’t vote for a religion, I vote for a candidate. For example, it doesn’t matter to me if someone is anti-abortion rights because she’s a fundie, a Catholic, a dandelion worshipper, or an atheist. If she’s anti-abortion rights, I’m anti-voting for her.
Now, if I had the choice between an atheist and a religious person who both claimed to have the same political views, I would likely be more likely (likely!) to vote for the atheist for two reasons:
- I’d like to see atheists get elected, or rather would like to see atheism not be cause for not getting elected, and
- I’d trust the atheist very very slightly more to deal with future events in a nonreligious way.
I don’t see how your first sentence implies the assertion in your second sentence.
To me, it sounds like people who were ashamed of the transgressions their fellow Muslims reacting with denial (as the kin of criminals often do).
And if they were ashamed, they probably weren’t in favor of the actions.
I would think that people who wanted to see Americans killed would be more likely to say, “Yeah, we did it, and we’d do it again” than “We didn’t do it”.
Not confusing, really, but beside the point. What good reason have you to believe that an atheist in public office will be any less respectful of human rights than a Christian? Lincoln was an atheist, but did not for that reason behave as though people are cattle.
Of course they are. Either human rights are something as absolute and essential as the laws of mathematics, in which case they are the same whether God exists or not, or approves of them or not; or they are in the nature of preferences, moral judgments and policy decisions, which are just as arbitrary when God decrees them as when a mortal king decrees them.
I dunno. Consider the Holocaust deniers.