I've heard right-wing politicos and pundits make this statement for the past seven years, the latest being Fred Thompson. 

Can anybody tell me what this proposition means?

It sounds like righteous rhetoric, but every which way I try to analyze the statement, I come up with a fistful of air.  I don't think it means anything at all...at least nothing that stands up to reason or logic.

:-\\

Buzzwords for the Bible Belt, obviously.

Bull*(&*(^ to the rest of us.

Bible Belt:  Read the Bible or I'll Belt you one!
http://www.inthe00s.com/smile/10/twak.gif

Yep...  this is the kind of worthless statement that my state falls for every year.

Our rights may very well come from God, perhaps that's just another way of saying that they're our natural birthrights. But they are guaranteed through a democratic system government. At least, they're supposed to be.

However, I'm sure the Religious Right would like to twist that around, but they need to get over the idea that God belongs to them alone.

In that case I'm probably going to be deported to Siberia.  ::)

they've been making this statement since JULY 4, 1776
(not just buzzwords from the bible or religious right rhetoric)


here's a few words from Alan Keyes:  "The Declaration Of Independance declares that all men are created equal and endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights. People these days, when they remember the Declaration at all, tend to focus on the rights and forget the Creator. If we remember and reflect on the Declaration's reference to the Creator, we realize that it invokes the authority of the Creator God as the basis for our claim to unalienable rights. It invokes that authority as governing all human beings, not just those who believe in or pray to Him. These statements about the universal sovereignty of God reflect the wisdom of America's Founding generation,
Justice is not the good of the stronger. It is not the survival of the fittest. It is the universal birthright of all humanity, established not by our laws, not by our triumphs, and not even by our prayers, but by the will of the Creator. Though some may pray to Him, and others not, all are entitled to be treated according to His will. Whether they are Christians, Jews, or Muslims, pagans, agnostics, or atheists, all people are His creatures.  President Bush is wrong to imply that Americans can believe that all religions are equal. (After all, those who deny the authority of the Creator deny the truth that makes our freedom possible.) We do believe that by God's will, His justice applies to all, even those who are mistaken in their beliefs. This is the American creed, in view of which all humanity may live without fear, so long as they give to the rights of others the respect it offers to their own.


this was a statement made by Alan Keyes after George Bush had made a statement that people of all religions pray to the same God.


**oh by the way, I don't know if Alan's dialogue helps, but I hope it does  :)

Good point, Badfinger...

This reminds me of why I'm not a true Constitutionalist or someone who idolizes the founding fathers.  I do like Ron Paul's focus on minimizing government, but even I still have to break ranks with him on the religion issue.

For all we know, the Flying Spaghetti Monster gave us our rights, but in all practicality, it is nothing more than authority itself that gives us our freedoms.  Without order, there can be no freedom, yet there is no such thing as complete freedom.

Natural rights are a nice idea, but they are intangible ideals that only have meaning if they are properly protected and enforced.

Maybe some divine being is connected to all this, but with our limited perspectives and intellects, trying to understand the divine is utterly and completely futile.

Can anybody tell me what this proposition means?


The Founders were Deists.  They believed in Spinoza's God; God is utterly impersonal, unknowable, and can neither be argued with, debated with, and is incapable of granting or denying salvation.  The God of Spinoza is effectively the laws of physics that govern the natural universe.  The Enlightenment was based on the notion that rational volitional beings have rights by virtue of their existence as rational volitional beings. 

Since you couldn't just go around saying something that prespammersite in a country founded by Puritans... and since you certainly couldn't say it back in mainland Europe, where the current debate was whether or not the Pope or the King of England was given the right of life or death of his subjects by the hairy thunderer God of the Old Testament... they sorta fudged and said "God".

300 years later, the Jesusmentalists have finally brought the theocratic argument of the Divine Right of Kings and the notion of Papal Supremacy into the West.  Your rights don't come from your existence as a human being, they come from an invisible sky monster.

The Founders?  Wrap wire around 'em and strap magnets to their coffins, and pray (heh!) that their ideas survive the New Dark Ages, until, centuries from now, some wiseacre comes up with the Second Enlightenment.

That sure is prespammersite, and a little depressingr,  but it's seems difficult to believe that the people that were defiant, rebellious and just declaring independance, and wanting to govern themselves would be fearful of sharing their true beliefs.

That sure is prespammersite, and a little depressingr,  but it's seems difficult to believe that the people that were defiant, rebellious and just declaring independance, and wanting to govern themselves would be fearful of sharing their true beliefs.


"That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, -- That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security..."
- Some friggin terrist.

Pre 9/11, strange beasts walked the Earth.  We called them Americans, even though it was more like Bizaro-America, where everything was backwards. 

Famed comedian Yakov Washington once said "In Bizarro-America, the Government ignored the Church!  The Government feared the People!  The People controlled the Government!  Whatta country!"

I've heard right-wing politicos and pundits make this statement for the past seven years, the latest being Fred Thompson. 

Can anybody tell me what this proposition means?

It sounds like righteous rhetoric, but every which way I try to analyze the statement, I come up with a fistful of air.  I don't think it means anything at all...at least nothing that stands up to reason or logic.

:-\\


  The rhetoric that's been used by kings, pharaohs and emperors to legitimize their rule and minimize dissent.  If you're rule is sanctioned by god how can the ruled oppose you?  You know how Roman emperors, Egyptian pharaohs, Assyrian, Babylonian and Persian kings were all about calling attention to their divinity.  More recently, emperor Hirohito was considered by the Japanese people to be a descendant of a "sun god"...

  Your right to rule is in your link to divinity by way of your blood.  A government of, by and for the people was unheard of in antiquity...

  Maybe Thompson was referring to western Judaeo-Christian concepts..?

Our rights may very well come from God, perhaps that's just another way of saying that they're our natural birthrights. But they are guaranteed through a democratic system government. At least, they're supposed to be.

However, I'm sure the Religious Right would like to twist that around, but they need to get over the idea that God belongs to them alone.


Great points all.  The religious right would like us to forget that our Founders were deists and founding ideals derive from deism.  God doesn't meddle in the affairs of men and he certainly does not give the king the right to do whatever the bloody hell he wants to the people, as George III would have us believe.  Can you imagine the liberating vigor of these new ideas after hundreds of years of the Divine Right of Kings?  Another thing to remember about the American Revolution is the consequences of failure.  If the colonies lost, Washington, Jefferson, Adams, and all those dudes wouldn't have been able to retire to their estates and write memoires; they would have been hanged!

McDonald is the one who summed up how I see it as well.  If our rights do come from God it is still up to man to set up a government to ensure them; thust, our rights would come through government from God.  You can see this in theistic governments, such as the Vatican.  The pope is not God.  He directs God's will upon Catholics.  In the old days the papacy was more absolutist.  Nowadays the clergy has more counsel with the pope. 

You have to read between the lines of what the right-wing says.  Their basic message:
God = good
Government = bad
Therefore, all the government policies they hate (capital gains tax, social programs for the needy, regulation of business, reproductive rights) come from government and must be abolished.  The government policies they like (capital punishment, the right to bear arms, high defense spending) express God's will.  What they want is a Christianist theocracy as Pat Robertson would have it not as Jesus would have it!  Jesus promoted giving all your wealth to the poor and turning the other cheek, not exactly your GOP platform!
::)

The Founders were Deists.  They believed in Spinoza's God; God is utterly impersonal, unknowable, and can neither be argued with, debated with, and is incapable of granting or denying salvation.  The God of Spinoza is effectively the laws of physics that govern the natural universe.  The Enlightenment was based on the notion that rational volitional beings have rights by virtue of their existence as rational volitional beings. 

Since you couldn't just go around saying something that prespammersite in a country founded by Puritans... and since you certainly couldn't say it back in mainland Europe, where the current debate was whether or not the Pope or the King of England was given the right of life or death of his subjects by the hairy thunderer God of the Old Testament... they sorta fudged and said "God".

300 years later, the Jesusmentalists have finally brought the theocratic argument of the Divine Right of Kings and the notion of Papal Supremacy into the West.  Your rights don't come from your existence as a human being, they come from an invisible sky monster.

The Founders?  Wrap wire around 'em and strap magnets to their coffins, and pray (heh!) that their ideas survive the New Dark Ages, until, centuries from now, some wiseacre comes up with the Second Enlightenment.
this is an interesting viewpoint Foo Bar, and serveral truths in it, yet I think not all of the founders or signers all thought this way. Yes, some were deists and some were chrtistians and I've seen this take on the subject widely supported on Atheist Alliance and Bible trashing websites with a main emphasis on refuting the bible, whereas we can find just as many Christian themed sites and college professors who've studied and support viewpoints that many indeed were Christian and supported a government that would encourage Chrisitianity along with freedom of religion. people need to study the words of the founders themselves and make their own decision as to what their belief system was. I have read both and we know neither of us will change our minds and thank God and our founders for putting in that freedom to make up our own minds and choose what we believe or don't care to believe ;D  take care

“But if serving the LORD seems undesirable to you, then choose for yourselves this day whom you will serve, whether the gods your forefathers served beyond the River, or the gods of the Amorites, in whose land you are living. But as for me and my household, we will serve the LORD.�- Joshua 24:15


sorry to tack on scripture here but I couldn't help it.  8)

They left out the other part that says " and God has told me to tell you what those rights are" 

Can't help but wonder: if somebody trashes your rights, who punishes them, or takes measures to prevent them from trying?  If these rights come from God, how come He never does anything to uphold them?


You have to read between the lines of what the right-wing says.  Their basic message:
God = good
Government = bad
Therefore, all the government policies they hate (capital gains tax, social programs for the needy, regulation of business, reproductive rights) come from government and must be abolished.  The government policies they like (capital punishment, the right to bear arms, high defense spending) express God's will.  What they want is a Christianist theocracy as Pat Robertson would have it not as Jesus would have it!  Jesus promoted giving all your wealth to the poor and turning the other cheek, not exactly your GOP platform!
::)

That sounds.. er.. right

the thing I see is that each take of the "God given rights" statement and the founders faith or non faith can be skewed by either side to support their viewpoint

A large problem comes from this formula. A right-wing, evangelical Christian says to himself 'I'm a Christian, and the Founding Fathers were Christian, therefore the Founding Fathers must have believed as I believe.' This is obviously a fundamental mistake.

Christianity and God have been high-jacked by the Right wing, and they take advantage of that and in doing so, exclude other types of Christians who believe differently than they do and brand them as 'errant'. But let's face it. If the shoe were on the other foot, and it were the more liberal, social gospel type Christians who were loud and dominant in the religion, the Right-wing political leadership would have abandoned God long ago and been singing the praises of secularism in order to deny people their so-called 'God-given' rights.

George Bush is not a Christian, he is a demagogic politician with blood on his hands. So was Hitler. Like Hitler, Bush vaunts the value of a nationalistic, right-wing brand of Christianity, because this is a useful political card to play. But we all know that Hitler was not an actual believer, and I for one do not think that Bush or his minions are either.

Now don't get all up in arms and disregard me for comparing Bush and Hitler. I know that Bush is not nearly as bad, but you cannot verily deny that they have used a few of the same political strategies.

Now don't get all up in arms and disregard me for comparing Bush and Hitler. I know that Bush is not nearly as bad, but you cannot verily deny that they have used a few of the same political strategies.


Somehow I don't think anyone is going to get in your face about this comparison. :D

That sure is prespammersite, and a little depressingr,  but it's seems difficult to believe that the people that were defiant, rebellious and just declaring independance, and wanting to govern themselves would be fearful of sharing their true beliefs.


There is a certain paradox to supporting the interests of the common man.  On the one hand, it is usually best to give the people as much power as possible to make their own decisions.  On the other hand, any observant individual must notice that the common man (or woman) is not that bright.  In some decisions (mostly with regard to economic policy), the people are too ignorant to know what's best for them.  Therefore, we operate as a republic, not a democracy.

I believe the founding fathers were wise enough to understand this.  Surely, they could see the lack of education and wisdom in the average person of their era.  Nowadays, people are more educated, but they still lack wisdom.

"...But as for me and my household, we will serve the LORD.�- Joshua 24:15

sorry to tack on scripture here but I couldn't help it.  8)


No apologies necessary.  Whether Deist or Christian, the Founders stood for the God-given (and you can read that as "inherent, by virtue of being a rational volitional being" or "instilled, by virtue of being a descendant of a creation of the God of Judeo-Christianity") right of man to stand up and say as for me and my household, followed by any declaration of faith he or she sees fit.

In the 1700s, the notion that a citizen had no obligation to follow his ruler's faith was a truly revolutionary (in every sense of the word) concept. 

They left out the other part that says " and God has told me to tell you what those rights are"   


Yes, exactly.  It's circular logic.  He who speaks for God becomes the government!  And oh yes, a HE it will be!
::)

No apologies necessary.  Whether Deist or Christian, the Founders stood for the God-given (and you can read that as "inherent, by virtue of being a rational volitional being" or "instilled, by virtue of being a descendant of a creation of the God of Judeo-Christianity") right of man to stand up and say as for me and my household, followed by any declaration of faith he or she sees fit.

In the 1700s, the notion that a citizen had no obligation to follow his ruler's faith was a truly revolutionary (in every sense of the word) concept. 


Very true...  And while I'm an atheist, I still respect the right of others to quote scripture where they see fit to.  Of course, scripture isn't going to hold much weight in a debate over law.

Of course, scripture isn't going to hold much weight in a debate over law.


As it should be.  Amen, brother!  :)