TOTALLY GEEKED!

lilyofcourse wrote:

---

It's extremely disturbing the number of people who simply do not understand the difference between a RIGHT and a PRIVILEGE.

---

Rights come from God. Not Gubermint.

Yes. Rights come from God. Not Gubbermint.

lilyofcourse wrote:

---

No.


God doesn't grant Rights.


God grants forgiveness.


Marriage isn't a Right in the Bible either. It is a caveat given so we don't "burn with desire".


Eve was Adams help mate, companion.

---

WTH? Do you not understand the founding fathers? Wow. Lilly. Rights COME from God.

Rights Come from GOD, Not Govt


In order to reaffirm and demonstrate what many conservatives believe, this would be a good time to review the founding principles and how they molded the thinking of the men who wrote the Declaration of Independence, the Articles of Confederation and the Constitution and established the federal government.

So the first principle as the title demonstrates is “Rights Come from God not Government”.

It is inherent in their thinking The Declaration came first “We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among them are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.” This being the first document and the one that set the tone there is little doubt that the people meeting in Philadelphia felt it important to validate their belief in universal right from God.

There is then an argument about this because God or the Creator are not specifically mentioned in the Constitution. What is clear when you read the Constitution is that it was a document establishing the parameters for both establishing and maintaining our government. There is no direct mention of God. But after the document was completed the founders realized that there was no specific limitations based on their belief in rights emanating from God and added ten very important amendments. Each save for the last two gave specific protection to the people from the new federal power and the last two showed the states and individuals the rights from God and limit the federal power over the people and states.

There is further argument from secularists that many of the founders were not Christians. One who has been challenged is Jefferson, under the claim that he was not a Christian, but a Deist.

To the contrary: at the web site for Monticello (www.monticello.org/site/research-and-collections/jeffersons-religious-beliefs) we find this quote:


“The rights of conscience we never submitted, we could not submit. We are answerable for them to our God. The legitimate powers of government extend to such acts only as are injurious to others. But it does me no injury for my neighbour to say there are twenty gods, or no god. It neither picks my pocket nor breaks my leg. … Reason and free enquiry are the only effectual agents against error.

Jefferson raised as an Anglican did talk with Deists and they did have some impact on his beliefs but he did believe in God and he did also promote “questioning boldly” . But he believe you could practice your religion or lack there of with equal protection it was not a matter of Government concern.

Things have changed folks and while many of our rights are under attack like the second amendment and the first is being quietly obliterated, this leads us to the question, why are the states not using the tenth amendment to push back against federal intervention? Part of the answer is our political process. Party politics pressures members to go along and toe the line in order to receive backing for promotion in the system. Under this process the first principle in the establishment of our country is being consumed by politicians who are intent on power and not on the best interest of the people. What they claim is that they are giving us rights. What they are actually doing is limiting rights.

In order to provide one person with a right granted by government it must take from others to do so, diminishing their right to property. Yes money is property earned from labor. Go back to the first principle and how the founders saw it. The government should let all men (and women) be free. Scary thought for some but if allowed to prosper with minimal government intervention the good will and charity of free people will prevail.

So you see the men who founded this country understood the value of a virtuous heart and mind. They trusted in the people to govern themselves at the local and state level and stayed away from a big federal government. They wanted big states with a supportive federal system not a ruling class in Washington playing one class against another. In fact there was no class system in the United States. You could, by your own hard work and determination move from one income level to another.

The History Channel recently ran a series on the men who built America. They stopped with Henry Ford. Why? People like Bill gates and Steve Jobs both started out as broke college kids and where are their companies now? This is the spirit of America.

Not telling people they didn’t build that and they aren’t paying their fair share. How can I say that? There was no permanent income tax until 1913. Once again the politicians fooled the people with what can only be described as an unconstitutional (The amendment should have never passed) amendment to institute a progressive tax. Taking another basic right away from the people, to be secure in your person and property.

Our rights come from God and the question for you, good citizens, is—how do we return to this first principle?

conservativereport.org/the-first-principle-our-rights-come-from-god-not-the-government/

Apparently not.

Declaration Of Independence: Do Our Rights Come from God, the Constitution, the Supreme Court, or Congress?










Share972 Tweet46 Share8.1K
11 Email20
The future of our Posterity depends on a proper understanding of the Source of our Rights. I will explain four views; show you which one is true, and why the other three are false and lead inexorably to the destruction of any country which embraces them.




1. Let us begin with what is true: Our Declaration of Independence says our Rights come from God. Our rights thus pre-date & pre-exist the U.S. Constitution. The Declaration of Independence says:


We hold these truths to be self-evident, 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, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed…

So these, then, are the foundational principles of our Constitutional Republic:
◾Our Rights are unalienable and come from God;
◾The purpose of civil government is to protect our God-given Rights;
◾ Civil government is legitimate only when it operates with our consent; &
◾ Since the US Constitution is the formal expression of the Will of the People, the federal government operates with our consent only when it obeys the Constitution.


image: cdn3.freedomoutpost.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/07/BTBWH-300x197.jpg
declaration of independenceBecause the Declaration of Independence identifies The Creator as Grantor of Rights, we look to The Bible – or the Natural Law – to see what those rights are. The Bible – or the Natural Law – reveals many rights, such as the rights to Life, Liberty, the Pursuit of Happiness; to inherit, earn, and keep property; the right of self-defense; the right and duty to demand that the civil authorities obey the Law; the right to speak; the right to live our lives free from interference from civil government; the rights of parents to raise their children free from interference from civil government; the right to worship God; etc.

The distinguishing characteristics of all God-given or Natural Rights 1 are:
◾Each one may be held and enjoyed at NO expense or loss to any other person; and
◾We can look them up for ourselves! They are not subject to someone else's interpretations.

2. But many conservatives mistakenly believe that our rights come from the first Ten Amendments to the Constitution. So they speak of "our constitutional rights," "the bill of rights," our "First Amendment right to free speech"; "our Second Amendment right to bear arms," and so forth. But it is a dreadful mistake to think that our rights come from the Constitution. I'll show you two reasons why this is such a pernicious error:

a) It is logically incoherent to say that our Rights come from the Constitution: Let us read the Preamble to the US Constitution:


WE THE PEOPLE of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.

WE THE PEOPLE established and ordained the Constitution. WE are the ones who created the federal government with its three branches: legislative, executive, and judicial. WE are the ones who gave the federal government permission to exist and told it exactly what it had permission to do, when WE assigned enumerated powers to each branch.

WE are the "creator" – the federal government is merely our "creature". (Federalist No. 33 (6th para), A. Hamilton.)

So! The Constitution is about the Powers which WE THE PEOPLE delegated to the federal government. The Constitution is NOT about Our Rights, which come from God and thus pre-date & pre-exist the Constitution!

b) Now look at Article III, Sec. 2, clause 1, U.S. Constitution:


"The judicial Power shall extend to all Cases…arising under this Constitution…"

Think carefully, for this is the hook: If our rights come from the first Ten Amendments or elsewhere in the Constitution, then they "arise under the Constitution"; and that clause is what gives federal judges power over our rights!

When judges have power to determine our Rights, our Rights are no longer unalienable – we hold them at the pleasure of five judges on the Supreme Court. But because so many of us, for so long, have believed and said that our rights come from the "bill of rights," those judges have seized on Art. III, Sec. 2, clause 1, to claim the power to determine the scope & extent of our rights!

So! Federal judges claim the power to regulate our political speech and religious speech. They claim the power to determine & regulate our property rights in the fruits of our own labors. They claim the power to control our retirements by forcing us to participate in social security! They even claim the power to take Life away from unborn babies.

Thus, when we say our Rights come from the Constitution, we are, in effect, agreeing to the submission of our Rights to the tender mercies of federal judges, because Art. III, Sec. 2, clause 1, gives them power over all cases "arising under the Constitution."

This is why we must always insist that our Rights have a source – Almighty God, the Natural Law – which transcends the Constitution! 2

And furthermore, why would the Creator of The Constitution (that's us) grant to our "creature" (the judicial branch of the federal government), the power to determine the scope & extent of OUR Rights? It makes no sense at all!

c) You might well ask, "Why did our Founders add the first Ten Amendments if they were such a bad idea?"

There was controversy over this! Alexander Hamilton warned in Federalist No. 84 (9th para) that a bill of rights would give a pretext for regulating to those inclined to usurp powers. And he was right! The Supreme Court has used the first amendment to regulate political speech and to ban Christian speech in the public square: no prayers at football games, no nativity scenes on county courthouse lawns, and Judge Roy Moore is ordered to take down the Ten Commandments.

But some States refused to ratify the Constitution without them.




So, the proper way to look at the first Ten Amendments is this: They are not the source of our Rights since our Rights come from God, and thus TRANSCEND the Constitution. The first Ten Amendments is merely a partial list of things the federal government may not do (they can't take away our guns), and some things they must do (give accused persons a fair trial).

3. Judges on the supreme Court have claimed, in recent decades, that the source of our "rights" is the Constitution, as such "rights" are defined and discovered, from time to time . . . BY THEM!

I'll show you how they did it: The original intent of the 14th Amendment (one of the "civil war" amendments) was to protect freed slaves from southern Black Codes which denied them basic rights of citizenship.

But judges on the supreme Court have perverted the 14th Amendment to fabricate so-called "rights" which negate Rights God gave us and undermine the Moral Order!

Section 1 of the 14th Amendment reads in part:


"…nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law…"

The original intent of that clause was that States couldn't go around lynching freed slaves and taking away their freedom and property.

But not so long ago, a handful of supreme court judges looked at the word, "liberty" in that clause, and claimed to have "discovered" underneath that word, a "constitutional right" to kill unborn babies ; and another "constitutional right" to engage in homosexual contact.

We will soon see whether the Supreme Court also "discovers" underneath that word, a "constitutional right" to same-sex marriage.

When we substitute federal judges for God as the source of our rights, the entire concept of "rights" becomes perverted. Literally.

4. The "liberal/progressives" say our Rights come from "government." They say a "right" is an entitlement to goods or services produced, or paid for, by somebody else: So, they speak of the "right" to medical care; the "right" to a free public school education; the "right" to housing; the "right" to food stamps; etc.

But it is a contradiction in terms to speak of "rights" to stuff that is produced or paid for, by other people! This is because it undermines our God-given or Natural Rights to private property, to the fruits of our own labors, and to liberty. To hold that people who produce exist to be plundered by civil government for the ostensible benefit of others, is slavery. Just as no one has the right to own another human being; so no one has the "right" to own the fruits of another man's labors.

To sum this up:

REMEMBER that clause in Our Declaration of Independence which states that our rights come from God, are unalienable, and that the purpose of civil government – the federal government – is to secure the Rights GOD gave us.

Our right do not come from the first Ten Amendments; they do not come from the Constitution as interpreted by federal judges; and they do not come from Congress which purports to give to their parasitic constituency the "right" to live at other peoples' expense.

Our Rights were bestowed by God, and as such, they transcend, pre-date & pre-exist the Constitution.

End notes:


1 "Natural Law" refers to that body of Law which is woven into the Fabric of Reality: The laws of physics, economics, logic, morality, etc. Non-theists, such as the brilliant philosopher, Ayn Rand, saw Rights as inherent to the nature of man. Either way, one comes up with essentially the same set of Rights. And if you listen carefully to "liberals/progressives" as they speak on any topic, you will see that their war is against Reality itself – they reject altogether the concept of transcendent Law. This is because they know no "law" but their own Wills.

2 Re the "tender mercies" of federal judges: During Senator Tom Coburn's questioning of Elena Kagan during her confirmation hearings, she refused to acknowledge the fundamental Principle stated in Our Declaration of Independence that our Rights pre-date & pre-exist the Constitution. Kagan in effect claims to sit on God's Throne and to decide what "rights" you have and what "rights" you don't have.

The only Document the Hard Left hates as much as the Bible is Our Declaration of Independence.

Read more at freedomoutpost.com/2013/07/declaration-of-independence-do-our-rights-come-from-god-the-constitution-the-supreme-court-or-congress/

I posted some articles. If you actually wish to read them, I do not know.

Contrary to many Christian's beliefs, the Declaration of Independence doesn't say our rights come from God. The word God is not used. The word used is "Creator", which means different things to different people. Christians will see it as "God". Agnostics and Atheists will likely see that as "the forces of random chance that created us". Deists (which most of the Founding Fathers were) would see that as "The unknown being or force that created us then abandoned us". Muslims would see that as "Allah". Hindus would see that as "Lord Brahma". And so on, and so forth.

We may interpret it to mean "God", but it doesn't say "God".

Lady Gaga Snerd wrote:

---

WYSIWYG wrote:

---

Contrary to many Christian's beliefs, the Declaration of Independence doesn't say our rights come from God. The word God is not used. The word used is "Creator", which means different things to different people. Christians will see it as "God". Agnostics and Atheists will likely see that as "the forces of random chance that created us". Deists (which most of the Founding Fathers were) would see that as "The unknown being or force that created us then abandoned us". Muslims would see that as "Allah". Hindus would see that as "Lord Brahma". And so on, and so forth.


We may interpret it to mean "God", but it doesn't say "God".

---

 

The founding fathers frame of reference is God. The God of Judaeo Christianity.

---

That doesn't change what's written down. 

 

The founding fathers frame of reference is God. The God of Judeo Christianity.
- Lady Gaga Snerd

__________________________

It's my understanding that most of the Founding Fathers were Deists. Which would mean that their frame of reference actually wasn't our Christian God, but a God that created everything and then left it to continue as it would without interference.

WYSIWYG wrote:

---

That's absurd. Creator is a name for God. NO ONE refers to the "big bang" as the "creator".

Plus, the big bang was not even hypothesized in 1776.

EPIC FAIL.
- huskerbb

_______________________

Creator is a description for God. I agree. But, as I pointed out, it's also a description for the deities of other faiths as well.

Who mentioned the Big Bang? No one until you did. Epic Fail on your part.

And, as ed11563 mentions, it doesn't change what's actually written. "God" is not represented, by name, anywhere in the founding documents. We can wish differently as much as we like, but that won't change the words that were written.

---

 Oh bullCrap.  You were referring to the Big Bang with your "forces of random chance" nonsense.  

 

Also, of the men who made up and signed the declaration--they weren't of "other faiths".

WYSIWYG wrote:

---

I agree with you, huskerbb. The Founding Fathers weren't "of other faiths". They were Deists.

Did you know that Atheism tracks it's roots back to before the 1700's? There were Atheists back when the Founding Documents were signed. You can look it up if you like. The Atheists of the time didn't understand "Big Bang", but they did believe God wasn't necessary for us to have come into existence.

You and I may disagree with their beliefs, but we cannot say that they didn't have them. Plus, I wasn't referring to just people alive at the time the Founding Documents were written. I was referring to anyone and everyone that has believed that they were there for them to protect their rights, no matter what time period that have lived in or will live in.

---

They were almost all members of the Anglican/Episcopal church.   

WYSIWYG wrote:

---

They were almost all members of the Anglican/Episcopal church.
- huskerbb

____________________________

That's how most of them were raised. Not how they were by the time they came to prominence. So I will agree with you that at one time or another in their lives they were Christian. However, by the time it came time to write the Founding Documents, most of them had transitioned over to Deism. Some of them even Christian Deists, but still Deists none-the-less.

---

 That is a myth.  At the time of the writing of the declaration, they were nearly all members of that church.  

Well, no. She didnt.

She didn't do anything.

Period.

ed11563 wrote:

---

huskerbb wrote:

---

WYSIWYG wrote:

---

They were almost all members of the Anglican/Episcopal church.
- huskerbb

____________________________

That's how most of them were raised. Not how they were by the time they came to prominence. So I will agree with you that at one time or another in their lives they were Christian. However, by the time it came time to write the Founding Documents, most of them had transitioned over to Deism. Some of them even Christian Deists, but still Deists none-the-less.

---

 That is a myth.  At the time of the writing of the declaration, they were nearly all members of that church.  

---

I don't care what they were. This country was founded by people escaping from tyranny and religious persecution. 

Saying this is a Christian Nation is saying that people like me cannot be full equal citizens.

 

KIm Davis used taxpayer funds to force her Christian beliefs onto others. Does anyone here think she should be allowed to do that?

 

---

 Ed, you are paranoid as usual.

huskerbb wrote:

---

ed11563 wrote:

---

huskerbb wrote:

---

WYSIWYG wrote:

---

They were almost all members of the Anglican/Episcopal church.
- huskerbb

____________________________

That's how most of them were raised. Not how they were by the time they came to prominence. So I will agree with you that at one time or another in their lives they were Christian. However, by the time it came time to write the Founding Documents, most of them had transitioned over to Deism. Some of them even Christian Deists, but still Deists none-the-less.

---

 That is a myth.  At the time of the writing of the declaration, they were nearly all members of that church.  

---

I don't care what they were. This country was founded by people escaping from tyranny and religious persecution. 

Saying this is a Christian Nation is saying that people like me cannot be full equal citizens.

 

KIm Davis used taxpayer funds to force her Christian beliefs onto others. Does anyone here think she should be allowed to do that?

 

---

 Ed, you are paranoid as usual.

---

Yes, I was paranoid when I was bothered in elementary and middle school because I (everyone) had to sing Christmas Carols, in assemblies, and the High School Choir focused on Church music (which was beautiful) and then sing one Jewish CHILDREN'S SONG ("I have a little dreidel") which is clearly aimed at kids under age 10.

And I was paranoid when DS2 was required to write Christmas Cards with specific Latin verses to send to soldiers in Iraq. Sorry, not appropriate for Jewish children.

 

And I'm paranoid when I think that prejudice CAN happen here.

And I'm paranoid when I think the Israelis might HAVE TO  nuke Iran before the Iranians are able to strike first ... which I'm certain the Iranians have plans to do.

 

And I'm paranoid because I always lock my car, and I have a home burglar alarm system.

And I'm paranoid when I have my pepper spray strapped to my hand when I'm walking around outside hospitals in dangerous neighborhoods.

Heck, no self-respecting gang-banger would want to mug an old white guy in a suit, right?

 

Is there something wrong with a little paranoia?

 

 

And let's face it - if you were in a Muslim country, you wouldn't have to worry about singing their religious songs, you'd probably just be dead.

YOu know what else - you did that because you grew up in a country where the majority of the people were Christian. Israel has religious freedom, too, but if I went to school there - I'd be doing Jewish traditions.

Good grief.

ed11563 wrote:

---

Lawyerlady wrote:

---

ed, I find Christian hate by Jews to be quite strange. The Christians are probably the only ones in the world that care what happens to the Jews.

---

Is it "hate" to object when my little kids are approached by the people going door to door who want to "save" their souls?

Or when someone sends me subscriptions to publications by the "Jews for Jesus" organization that was inviting me to "Jewish Services" in the basement of a local church?

My "born again" neighbor who kept up this campaign to convert me, wouldn't understand that there's no such thing as a Jew who believes in Jesus.

Do I "hate" Christians? No, I just object to the actions of those who are constantly trying their best to "save" the Jews from eternal damnation.

---

 Fine.  But that has NOtHING to do with the topic at hand.

 

also, there are Jews who believe in Jesus.  Jew is a culture as well as a religion.  

Our previous Lutheran pastor was a Jew.

It's somewhat akin to a non-practicing Catholic.

Sounds like some people here have been snookered.

When a person of Jewish parentage says they believe in Jesus as the Son of God,

that person is no longer a Jew. That person is a Christian. They've converted. Period. 

And any person who happily proclaims that he or she is a Jew for Jesus ..

 

is a Christian, not a Jew.

 

It's kind of like a person who has an original equipment penis, is a male.

They can claim otherwise, but that doesn't make it so.

 

 

just Czech wrote:

---

Oh, good grief.

DH's mother was the granddaughter of a Jewish couple, who joined the Lutheran Church. So, yes, there are and have been Jew's who are Christians. The two are not incompatible.

---

 there are and have been Jew's who are Christians

Not "are", "became" when they converted and became Lutheran. No longer Jews.

 

lilyofcourse wrote:

---

Jesus was Jewish.

And do you understand what Christian means?

It means follower of Christ.

I know the Jewish belief is that Jesus was a good Rabbi and that the Messiah hasn't come to earth yet.

But, at the same time, they celebrate the miracles preformed by Jesus and God.

And yes, there are Christian Jews.

---

Only a Christian would say either of those things. 

I read similar cr@p in the "Jews for Jesus" magazines my evangelical neighbor sent me.

 

Being Jewish is both a heritage and a religion. One does not give up their heritage by choosing to believe in Christ. If it is the belief that makes one a Jew, then ed's clear lack of belief in God means he isn't a Jew, either, based on that ridiculous logic.