No, I knew what you wanted - but it's just tiring to play another round of the Christian Superiority Game ... as if Christianity developed in it's own little bubble.
The founders were wrong because nowhere in the bible does God mention what rights we have. This is 100% interpretation by the founders.
Not at all. This is not about my belief in any religion or deity or lack thereof. The point is to talk about the philosophy which brought about our nation, and our Constitution. I don't think that is a distinction without a difference.
Okay, but I remember that you cannot agree with and accept the two most prime rights and how they work together to protect all of the rest. So your thread will be an exercise in hypocrisy if you do the same thing this time around. Do you agree and accept that the framers of the founding documents intended for us to alter or abolish government destructive to our unalienable rights? Do you agree and accept that the ultimate purpose of free speech is to enable the unity adequate to effectively alter or abolish? If you cannot agree with and accept those prime constitutional intents, rights with specific purposes, at least explain the alternative that made alter or abolish possible. If the framers intended for Americans to alter or abolish government destructive to unalienable rights, what did they intend to serve the PURPOSE of enabling the unity required to effectively alter or abolish if it was not free speech?
There was no underlying philosophy behind the creation of our nation. The founders were bitterly divided on that issue. The constitution was created because the AOC were crumbling so it was a compromise built out of necessity.
I don't even know what that means, but it does seem in the same vein of religious bigotry of your previous posts. Seriously, let's stay off the topic of religion and focus on the political philosophy...Please. Well, yeah, interpretation of political philosophy, we are not talking about religion or the bible.
C = creator of the country. Founding fathers. From your link: In casual speech, the term can refer to any of "the most basic beliefs, concepts, and attitudes of an individual or group," (e.g., "Dr. Smith's philosophy of parenting").[12] All reference an opinion. Nothing factual.
There was no political philosophy. During Marbury v. Madison you had founders arguing for each side about what the constitution meant and these were the guys who wrote it.
Rights are simply an idea, created by man. They are a good idea. But they are an idea nonetheless. Do not become self-righteous and think that rights are any more than an idea. Religion is the ultimate in self-rightousness and egomania. To think that the god who created the 100 billion galaxies of the universe, each with 100 billion stars - is somehow prreoccupied with what "rights" that certain human beings in some country called "America" have - is the height of pompous egocentrism and ignorance. If god does exist, it is abundantly clear that he doesnt give a rats asss about human beings, or our precious "rights." So where do rights come from? They come from other men, who made them up as an idea. As it turns out, they are a great idea, because they make for a good, stable, functioning society. But don't think that they're any more than what they are - a good idea.
Well then, here is a perfect post to address and demonstrate your accountability. http://www.politicalforum.com/showthread.php?t=440724&page=3&p=1065758299#post1065758299 Please be accountable to fundamental American political philosophy.
You are welcome to debate that if you wish. Ultimately, nobody is required to endorse your personal beliefs in two "prime rights". I'm glad to entertain discussion of that and how it relates to the Founder's philosophies, or that of John Locke or other important figures. Show us where you think those rights are expressed by them or by Natural Law and so forth.
There is a difference from what the founders believed, and what is actually true. Many of the founders believed that slavery is OK. As it turns out, that's not actually true, cause slavery is not OK. Similarly, many of the founders believed the our rights came from god. As it turns out - not exactly true either. The founding fathers were not gods. They were men. They had some good ideas. They had some bad ones. That's it. They founded a country that was horribly flawed, and we've been improving it ever since. Just cause the founding fathers said something - doesn't mean we should just take it as gospel. Try using your brain.
Not seeking to debate. Seeking agreement with the framers words describing a right in the Declaration of Independence (DOI) to be later expressed, codified as Article V, and functional enablement of that right. Rather than debate if you refuse to accept the words of the framers in the DOI, with the logical enablement found through the purpose of the later right of free speech, then explain the functional alternative enablement of the right. Here, http://www.politicalforum.com/showthread.php?t=440724&page=3&p=1065758299#post1065758299
Well you are welcome to believe that too in spite of the writings of the founders and the philosophers of the times.
The difference between the Creator and creator...the capital "C". - - - Updated - - - Of course there was political philosophies. This is the subject of this thread, those political philosophies.
Well if you didnt want to debate your god why bring him into the conversation. You did this so you should expect a challenge on your fairy tale. You cannot make a broad statement about some god and then say hands off go to the religous section. It a cop out and a calculated one. It was a chocken (*)(*)(*)(*) move .
Since it is such a fundamental question, and it's taking the thread off topic, I'll answer with logic historically and scientifically supported. The God of nature. This explains the term natural law. It is our biology, phylogenetic DNA which dictates our behaviors. That God made us alive so obviously intends we live and the behaviors that most enable life are those created by that God.
Arrrgh!!!! we are are talking about natural rights. These are really easy to understand. Imagine you are dropped from heaven by a stork onto a land that there are no other humans. You can do absolutely anything you want. You can poo upstream, or you can chop down a tree. Everything you can do is a natural right. Enter another human, and those rights are curtailed because maybe that stream you want to poo in is upstream from him. He doesn't want to cook his tree bark with water that is slightly soiled. Then suddenly, your natural right to poo in the water is violating another person's natural rights, and you no longer have that natural right. We are born with natural rights, which are curtailed by the rights of others. If you (*)(*)(*)(*) in my soup, you are literally pissing on my right to have a urine free bowl of soup. But if you're nowhere around me, then I have the right to take a dump. Or use a gun. So let's take that "use a gun" bit. So long as I'm not shooting it at you, I have the right to have a gun. That's a natural right.