American History

» pink101 - Sloppy Thinking

In response to Sloppy Thinking posted by BrianTubbs:
.
So, is it your point that the intentions of the Founders wanted posterity to know that our inalienable rights are the gift of the creator? Is that what you're wanting us to believe?
.
My claim is that--no matter where the inalienable rights come from--the Founders believed they exist in all human beings as an occurrence in the natural state sans society. And, further, that it is necessary to form a government for the purposes of securing them, that is, in the sense of protecting the individual's equality--the weak with the strong--in the presence of the law to practice their inalienable rights.
.
Am I wrong?
.

-- posted by pink101

» Brian Tubbs - Answers

In response to Sloppy Thinking posted by pink101:

So, is it your point that the intentions of the Founders wanted posterity to know that our inalienable rights are the gift of the creator? Is that what you're wanting us to believe?

That is precisely what they wanted us to know, and it's not just what I want you to believe. It's what Thomas Jefferson, the primary author of the DoI himself, affirmed. See previous quote - earlier in this thread.

My claim is that--no matter where the inalienable rights come from--the Founders believed they exist in all human beings as an occurrence in the natural state sans society.

The Founders believed that we all have natural, unalienable rights because they come from GOD and NOT the state. That is what they believed, Pink, and the historical record bears me out.

And, further, that it is necessary to form a government for the purposes of securing them, that is, in the sense of protecting the individual's equality--the weak with the strong--in the presence of the law to practice their inalienable rights.

The Founders believed that government's duty was to protect or to "secure" the natural, unalienable rights of all peoples. They didn't believe we could or should guarantee "equality" per se, because there would be different levels of achievement. Equal opportunity and equal rights, yes. Equal outcomes...NO.

» pink101 - Answers

In response to Answers posted by BrianTubbs:
.
Well, we see how a person's agenda can affect their understanding of reality.
.
I am sure that your interpretations are wrong. The way you make it look would cause us to believe that the Founders were Evangelicals out to prove something about God. In other words, the founding of America was all about proving the existence of God as far as you're concerned. It just doesn't work when it's put in the context of the American Revolution and the reason why Jefferson wrote the Declaration in the first place--it was all about personal sovereignty and the inalienable/unalienable rights. It is what we have come to know as self determination. The purpose of the reference to the Creator as the one that endowed those rights is all about the fact that the rights exist prior to society's influence. I don't see how you can get that so wrong.
.
The only explanation I can come up with for your position is that you are working on an agenda as your explanation is tangent from the Declaration itself.
.
Can you give me any academic references in support of your position?
.
I do know that the Founders were concerned with too definite a reference to a specific identity for god and that they settled on the word, Creator.

-- posted by pink101

» Brian Tubbs - Agenda & Reality

In response to Answers posted by pink101:

Well, we see how a person's agenda can affect their understanding of reality.

That is PRECISELY what I have been thinking about YOU

I am sure that your interpretations are wrong.

This either means you have misunderstood my interpretations or that you have a very distorted and/or incomplete view of the American founding

The way you make it look would cause us to believe that the Founders were Evangelicals out to prove something about God.

I'm sorry to get testy, but I get frustrated when I have to repeat myself over and over - and people CONTINUE to misunderstand me or misstate my positions. Let me say it again. Read this slowly if you have to...

Not all the Founding Fathers were Christian. And CERTAINLY not all of them were evangelicals. In fact, most of the Founders wouldn't have appreciated or accepted that term "evangelical."

Moreover, the Founding Fathers did not - repeat NOT - set the USA up to be an officially evangelical nation with an evangelical or Christian government.

Okay? With me?

I am NOT saying that the "Founders were Evangelicals." Okay?

I WOULD say, however, that ALL of the signers of the Declaration of Independence professed a belief in God. ALL OF THEM!

And...that MOST of them would have described themselves not only as Deists or monotheists, but specifically as "Christians."

My evidence for this their own writings and church affiliations.

In other words, the founding of America was all about proving the existence of God as far as you're concerned.

Once again, you either REFUSE to really engage what I'm saying or you are clueless about what I'm saying. I did NOT say that the founding of America was "all about proving the existence of God." I never said that. Never!!!!!

Rather, the Founders all BELIEVED in God and held God to be the source of our unalienable rights. THAT is what I've been saying - and I stand by that.

And John F. Kennedy agrees with my interpretation (and that of the Founders). It was JFK (one of your heroes, I believe) who said: "The rights of man come not from the generosity of the state, but from the hand of God."

So, Pink, do you agree or disagree with JFK?

Harry Truman echoed a similar sentiment in 1949: "We believe that all men are created equal, because they are created in the image of God."

It just doesn't work when it's put in the context of the American Revolution and the reason why Jefferson wrote the Declaration in the first place--it was all about personal sovereignty and the inalienable/unalienable rights.

The "it" you refer to is the STRAW MAN you've built up. You've misconstrued and distorted my position - and pushed it to an extreme.

Pink, there's no way to say this w/o sounding boastful, so I'll just say it. I've studied the founding era of the United States thoroughly for the last 15-20 years. I have a pretty good idea about the reasons Jefferson wrote the Declaration of Independence and how the Founders understood "sovereignty" and "unalienable/inalienable rights."

It is what we have come to know as self determination.

With THAT sentence, you're starting to veer back toward our point of agreement.

The purpose of the reference to the Creator as the one that endowed those rights is all about the fact that the rights exist prior to society's influence. I don't see how you can get that so wrong.

You are right - but not FULLY right. In other words, it's like saying the name of our President is "George W." Well, yes, but it's really "George W. BUSH."

YES, the reference to the Creator illustrates that our RIGHTS precede the formation of government and the "influence of society." You are ABSOLUTELY CORRECT! Bravo. Well said. But...

The reference to our Creator ALSO points to the issue of AUTHORITY! In other words, our rights are absolute and uncontested not simply because they precede government, but because they come from GOD!

The only explanation I can come up with for your position is that you are working on an agenda as your explanation is tangent from the Declaration itself.

That is my assessment of your position - or more to the point, your secularist agenda and anti-organized religion bias prevents you from seeing the full picture of the American founding.

Can you give me any academic references in support of your position?

Here we go...what do you mean by "academic"? And do my sources all have to be left of center for you to view them as credible? Will you take Bill Bennett, Dinesh D'Souza, Lynne Cheney, et al as credible? They are all credentialed academics, but they are also conservative - so you will probably rule them out right away. Such a dismissal of these and others by you will only frustrate me - anger me, in fact. So, I'd rather not go there.

» pink101 - Agenda & Reality

In response to Agenda & Reality posted by BrianTubbs:

.
.what do you mean by "academic"?
.
Maybe I do misunderstand what you're saying. But, it seems to me you are emphasizing the authority of the Creator as though it were central to the Declaration of Independence. If that is true, I must disagree with your position.
.
Further, my opinion is that it is extremely important that the world knows that the Founders meant it to be absolutely clear that the inalienable rights exist in nature. So, your point, regarding authority, stands in the sense that government does not supersede the authority of the Creator. If that is your point, I think you are correct--the very definition of the word, inalienable.
.

-- posted by pink101

» pink101 - God's Righteousness

In response to Agenda & Reality posted by pink101:

.
I'm thinking we might be able to compare the inalienable rights to God's righteousness in that the latter indicates a group of rights that come from God.
.

-- posted by pink101

» Brian Tubbs - God and the Declaration of Independence

In response to Agenda & Reality posted by pink101:

I think the Founders made these points concerning God in the Declaration of Independence:

1) Our inalienable/unalienable rights come from the Creator, which precedes the state and is higher in authority than the state. Sounds like we are finally in agreement on that.

2) God is the author of the laws of nature, upon which much of the American experiment is based. See Jefferson's reference in the FIRST paragraph to the "Laws of Nature and Nature's God." And then look to the writings of Locke, Coke, Blackstone, et al to bear out what the Founders understood about God's relationship to the "laws of nature."

3) The Founders made a rhetorical statement that they were submitting their consciences to God's review - God being the "Supreme Judge" over their "intentions." I won't try to get a lot of mileage out of this one, as I think this was primarily a rhetorical declaration of their deep sincerity. I do, however, think that what SOME of the Founders had in mind with this statement is the many proclamations they and their colonial legislatures had passed calling for prayer and fasting in the months and years leading them to the point of declaring independence.

4) They appealed to God (or "Divine Providence") for "protection." And would continue to do so in subsequent resolutions.

I would encourage you to read what the Library of Congress has to say about the Continental Congress and religion...

http://www.loc.gov/exhibits/religion/

» Brian Tubbs - God's Righteousness

In response to God's Righteousness posted by pink101:

I think God's "righteousness" refers to His holiness and His sense of absolute justice. The "right" aspect of "righteousness" speaks to what God sees as "RIGHT" (as opposed to wrong) rather than God's concept of natural "rights."

» pink101 - God and the Declaration of Independence

In response to God and the Declaration of Independence posted by BrianTubbs:

.
And, I think that your approach, here, is the sensible one for all practical purposes.
.
If we could proceed from this point in our educational system, we could build a better understanding of why America was founded.
.

-- posted by pink101

» pink101 - God's Righteousness

In response to God's Righteousness posted by BrianTubbs:

.
The word, righteousness, is used in such ways that it creates a problem for us in our understandings.
.
It is, generally, used to indicate a life style; but, what does life style mean?
.
A righteous person is one who acts according to their rights.
.
In that case, then, if God is righteous, then God acts according to God's rights.
.
So, God's righteousness? Is that the way God acts or is it all the rights that God possesses?
.
Pretty much, the rights one possesses and how one acts according to those rights are one and the same thing--righteousness.
.
Maybe the word can be used interchangeably to carry either meaning.
.

-- posted by pink101