If "Our Creator" endowed us with rights...

Right that have no one to enforce them are just useless words.

What rights were you born with?

If we are to discuss god given Homo Sapien rights, we should start by naming the ones you think they are.

Regards
DL

 

What rights do you have the right to say I don't have?

 

I did not say anything about you.

I was asking the poster what rights the poster was born with.

As to me, I was exercising my right to free speech, which is not a full right as I have to watch for slander.

I don't think Americans have that protection against slander.

Trump even lies openly about ex president Obama.

The U.S should consider a slander law.

Regards
DL

 

You are criticizing Calvinism, Calvinism is not all of Christianity.

And there are several valid critiques of Calvinism, some by Calvin himself.

Admittedly, it can seem a stern and even harsh doctrine, and thus seems at odd to Christianity's major emphases on love and forgiveness but many find it just. It must be remembered that Calvin was trying to justify the new doctrine of Capitalism within the Christian ethos and Capitalism was (and still is) seen by many as the best way there is to break the power of entrenched hereditary elites

 

There's a recent and very popular movie on the USA's unique attitude to Libel and Slander. It's caused "Absence of Malice" and is being rebroadcast recently. (I am pretty sure that is not coincidence)

Nobody listens to Trump and the Trumpers at this point anyway. "Black man bad, Lock everybody up, #ManofBronzeWonderful, Build Wall" . Only the choir hears it any more and even they are having problems with the idea of Clorox as the Covid Cure all.

 

This issue isn't "believers" vs. "nonbelievers". And, it doesn't have to do with "liberals", either.

Look at where America's founders came from and long, long history of government making decisions about religion.

Connecting religion and government is NOT a good idea, regardless of what you may think about the various religious issues.

We have churches teaching our children today.

I haven't objected to that. In fact, one of my daughters went to such a school (though that school wasn't attached or funded by a specific church), because we felt that school was a sound educational option - though expensive, as it competes as one of our city's private schools.

In NO way am I "embarrassed" on this issue and I stand by what I have said.

Also, if you want to talk about our highest court, please use some respect.

 

Genesis Eden story is a strong statement concerning aspects human nature - whether it is actual events or allegorical hardly matters. The message is the same.

But, that's not the issue here.

What I pointed out is that the Bible isn't about RIGHTS. It IS about DUTIES.

The Eden story doesn't say anything about RIGHTS.

Mosaic law incudes some rights - like the right of poor people to demand loans from rich people, including the right to be made free of repayment in a fixed period of time. But, that law didn't come from God - it was a secular law of the time.

The Bible is about duties to god - not the rights of man.

 

I agree that without enforcement, a person's rights can easily be abrogated and have regularly been throughout history.

 

Deleted

 

I can understand your interpretation of my post. While the electoral college is not ‘what makes us a Republic’, it was one provision, among others, that was intended to help mitigate potential risks to the form of government the FF were trying to lay a foundation for governing the ‘Union’ of the independent Sovereign states.
While the Founding Fathers were certainly aware of the histories of the Grecian and Roman forms of government, and the writings of Plato, I would argue they were more heavily heavily influenced by the philosophy of governing by Burke, Locke, Montesquieu (three branches of Government and multiple checks on power) and were concerned of the dangers of a popular Democracy to devolve to a tyranny of the majority, being then usurped and by plutocrats (i.e., politically-connected capitalists) faction to influence and corrupt a populace to the benefit of the plutocrats’s special interests and accumulation of power as described by the Roman historian, Polybius, where a mob could become the guided instrument of power for the few oligarchs influencing them with financially related rewards and promises benefit/privilege. Some of these fears are discussed in the Federalist #10 essay.

http://penelope.uchicago.edu/Thayer/E/Roman/Texts/Polybius/6*.html
http://www.let.rug.nl/usa/documents/1786-1800/the-federalist-papers/the-federalist-9.php
http://www.let.rug.nl/usa/documents/1786-1800/the-federalist-papers/the-federalist-10.php

A number of the essays in the Federalist collection, discuss fears of ‘factions’ (think political parties) accumulating power at the expense of minority interests.
The eventual decision to structure the new Government with provisions to balance the interests of sovereign states with some semblance of those of common interests resulted in federated republic and many of the subsequent provisions, including electing the president, were designed to balance the interests of individual states. That, along with the additional concerns expressed by Hamilton in Federalist Paper #85 resulted in establishing the Electoral College as did subsequent issues resulting in the 12th A in the early 1800’s. One concern at the time was balancing the interests of smaller population states and those of balancing interests between large population centers over those rural areas (an even greater disparity in modern times). The question in modern times is whether small densely populated geographic areas can know the local interests and fairly represent them in a system that is designed to prevent a tyranny of a majority.
The efficacy of the electoral college has been debated for almost 200 years, particularly the losers of elections where there have been a difference in results between those of the Electoral College tallies and those of the popular vote. However, there has been no serious attempt at pushing an Amendment for establishing an alternative means, nor, IMO, will one happen in my lifetime.

 

I disagree absolutely. But your opinion doesnt matter regarding my point that a Christian majority society would value free speech as a God given right because Bible believing Christian's believe in the concept of free will. If you have a majority Christian society who believe God gave us free will then all your arguments are to them, not my point.

 

We've had plenty of Christian majority societies that certainly have had NO interest in "free will" or equality on religious issues.

In fact, we were born of such a problematic system. That motivated our founders to create an amendment specificallly identifying that problem.

And, this discussion certainly isn't about what a Christian might do!

Again, the Bible does NOT confer rights. The Bible identifies duties.

In fact, Genesis implies that free will is a root of original sin. Free will is a factor that makes it hard for humans to carry out the duties specified in the Bible.

 

This discussion is about the concept of unalienable rights and how some people see them as rights endowed by a creator and some see them as no different then any other rights.

My point is that Bible Believing Christians will say that God values free will. It doesnt matter if YOU think Christiananity doesnt....its what a room full of Christians think as they devise government structure and laws.

 

I can no longer look upon your god-government court and feign respect when they show NONE for the Posterity of the founders and framers of this country. America's values were built on Christian principles, not as a theocracy, but upon the principles of right and wrong from a Christian perspective. Don't be fooled. Politics is religion in action. A person defines right and wrong according to the dictates of their conscience.

 

I suspect that may have more to do with the issues of free will and predestination. This is a serious topic with different views within today's branches of Christianity, including in the US (as well as from the very start of Christianity). Free will is not a right.

Again, the Bible teaches us about duties.

The constitution is a secular work concerning government and rights recognized by that government.

 

Our government emerged from a centuries long experiment with government. That experiment showed that there has to be a divide between church and state. It also showed that we can not have a leader that is above the law - so, our founders divided responsibility between our three branches, instituting checks and balances to prevent one branch from dominance. That is a fundamental principle of our form of government, and it doesn't have ANYTHING to do with religion.

Beyond that, one must recognize that the Bible does not teach us about rights - it informs us of DUTIES.

The individual rights in our constitution do not come from the Bible. They may be appreciated by those with totally incompatible persuasions concerning the existence and nature of a god. But, that's not a suggestion that they originated with any particulare persuasion.

Our laws come from our experience in how humans work together. Our laws aren't the same as Mosaic laws, as we've learned a lot and many things have changed since then - like incredible population density, travel capability, trade, etc.

We no longer see a justification for killing those who wear garments of two fibers. Our laws say I can eat pork. Maybe pork production and consumption was a way for disease to be communicated and it had to be outlawed in order for their society to be healthy and successful.

 

The real problem is, you can't prove your claim.
Which I already knew.
There are no rights given in the bible.

 

You can speak freely without fear of being jailed or worse. Granted.

 

Show the legal document where this is granted.

 

I quoted where the bible shows that Yahweh does not allow free speech.

I don't care what branch of the putrid Christianity our friend is in.

The fact that he is a moral coward that ignores scriptures is all I need know.

Regards
DL

 

The right held their noses while voting for Trump the first time and they are so immoral that they will do it again the next time.

If the left voters do not get off their ass and vote him out, he will win again.

Regards
DL

 

Our Constitution was ratified largely by Christians and their concept of right and wrong are incorporated into that document. They absolutely DID build a country predicated on Christian principles. They even fought a war over the issue.

The Bible teaches us about Rights and Duties. Before the illegal passage of the 14th Amendment, we had unalienable Rights, guaranteed by the Bill of Rights. There was the presupposition that those Rights were inherent, absolute, irrevocable, natural, unalienable (aka God given) and above the laws of man. An example of that concept is found in a United States Supreme Court case in regards to gun control. In that case the United States Supreme Court held:

"The right there specified is that of "bearing arms for a lawful purpose." This is not a right granted by the Constitution. Neither is it in any manner dependent upon that instrument for its existence." United States v. Cruikshank, 92 U.S. 542 (1876)

The Right was not granted by the Constitution; it preexisted and the Right to keep and bear Arms is not dependent upon the Constitution. It exists regardless of whether or not the Constitution exists. Now, since the Second Amendment is a part of the Bill of Rights, any de jure / lawful / constitutional court would have to find that all of the guarantees in the Bill of Rights must, by law treated the same way. It's one Bill - one law. One only need to read the Declaration of Independence to see why we went to war and conclude what kind of government the founders / framers envisioned.

Seems you could not read the quoted Scripture. It contradicts what you're saying... and of course I can prove what I'm saying. As long as you have free will, you have Rights. It is governments that seek to limit your Liberty. Every Right the Constitution originally protected has a biblical precedent upon which it can be defended.

 

And what will you trade Trump for? Will you support the man who has vowed to attack your unalienable Rights? So, you will feel safe with a president that is comfortable hobnobbing with a self proclaimed democratic socialist? It's the lesser of two evils because we do not stand up, step up, demand more of ourselves and then choose better leaders from a better citizenry. There is not one, single, solitary politician on Capitol Hill that I trust with my life. My focus will never be about replacing one political propaganda prostitute with another, but rather demanding that my fellow Americans become better citizens so that decent leaders can proceed forth from a just society.

 

Start with the constitution.