The coming evangelical collapse

[shagdrum]

It doesn't matter whether it is legally binding - it is what Jefferson thought. He changed 'property' to 'pursuit of happiness' - he, Jefferson thought it was OK to change God's will, if he believed them to be God's will. He didn't. He felt our rights originate within man - so, man has the ability to modify them or alter them.

First, he didn't change property to pursuit of happiness. Those Jefferson quotes I cited at the end of post 101 pretty well show that. Jefferson expanded the idea of property to the more broad idea of a "pursuit of happiness", which was a rather common and generally accepted view at the time (evidence; the final draft of the Declaration, the Pennsylvania Constitution and the New Hampshire Constitution).

And, again, he was only modifying the phrasing. He was in no was substantively changing those rights. They always included life, liberty and property.

Here are some more quotes of Jefferson's to keep in mind:

The Declaration of Independence... [is the] declaratory charter of our rights, and of the rights of man.
-Jefferson to Samuel Adams Wells, 1819

Some other natural rights... [have] not yet entered into any declaration of rights
-Jefferson to John W. Eppes, 1813​

Jefferson was phrasing the term as broad as possible to encompass all other "non-personal" rights. The terminology gets more specific when those rights are enumerated in the social contract. And they altered the theory a bit in what rights they viewed as "natural rights". That much is pretty evident. So what? It is a theory they chose to accept and apply as they saw fit. What qualifies as 'Natural right' is not set in stone. The amendment process can effectively add to that list of what qualifies as a natural right.

So, shag, divine decree - God's will, God's word can be changed by man?

You are the one characterizing it as a "decree". That characterization is entirely inappropriate and flat out deceptive in the context of this debate.

Here is the definition of decree:

An authoritative order having the force of law.​

Lockean theory, and the Framers never assumed that those rights came from a "decree" from God. Those Natural Rights were viewed simply as a byproduct of being created in the image of God. If you knew anything about the basic theory of Natural Rights (or took the time to learn), you would know that.

Nope, religion always gets in the way of government if given a foothold. That is why the founding fathers insisted on keeping it out of government. I am not basing this on some false premise, I am basing this on how the founding fathers built our government - no church involvement.

You are basing this on nothing but a false premise citing more inaccurate assertions (based on speculation and distortion) as proof; a false premise backed up by another false premise.

But, Jefferson used created and creation - equal creation, which does not tie into assigning creation to any God or Creator.

"Equal creation" is part of the Lockean idea of God given Natural Rights.

Jefferson avoided using God, explicitly.

Once again, the absence of proof is not the proof of absence.

And get rid of the whole 'in his image' thing Shag - that has nothing to do with this debate.

It is at the heart of the idea of God given natural rights. It is very relevant to this debate.

And shag - if you can't understand that the only reason I brought up Paine was to put into historical content that the idea that rights derive from something other than 'God' was around with others at this time, then I guess you just won't understand.

I understand that point, but in the context of the debate here, that is not why you originally brought it up. In post number 93 you brought Paine up as support for the conclusion that, "he [Jefferson] didn't think rights came from God".

Then you went on, citing that irrational and inaccurate conclusion as a false premise to draw the conclusion that, "the founding fathers wanted 'God' out of the equation when it came to rights."

As usual, you are basing your simply simply on false premises drawn from cherry picked (and distorted) facts and speculation to reach irrational conclusion.

It isn't guilt by association. It is historical precedent. If others in the same time period are espousing similar thoughts, then you can show that Jefferson's idea that rights emanate from something other than God isn't that unusual - or 'new'. It once again goes back to Lee's letter when Jefferson is saying that there wasn't anything new in the DOI.

First; you haven't cited "others", you have cited...Paine.

Second; you have not shown that Jefferson viewed rights as not coming from God. You have yet to cite one peice of evidence that supports that conclusion. The best you have done is cite quote that don't explicitly support the idea. Once again, the absence of proof is not the proof of absence.

The argument from ignorance...is a logical fallacy in which it is claimed that a premise is true only because it has not been proven false, or is false only because it has not been proven true.​

I have cited a number of quotes that clearly demonstrate that Jefferson did view rights as coming from God. Your quotes don't counter that conclusion and have to be viewed in a consistent manner with those quotes I have offered.

Ah, shag, I never said Jefferson wasn't a Unitarian. Where is that little quote of mine? I was explaining why he called himself a Christian. Unitarian's aren't Christians... Unitarianism is the belief that God exists in one person, not three. It is a denial of the holy trinity as well as the divine aspect of Jesus. Therefore, it is not Christian. Jefferson certainly showed signs of being a unitarian, far more than a deist (I didn't claim he was a deist either)... He called himself a 'unitarian by himself' once - which goes with the 'sect unto myself' quote. He really didn't associate himself with any 'religion'.

Ahh...Unitarians believe that their religion is the original form of Christianity. While some Christians (Trinitarians) would say that Unitarianism is not true Christianity; technically, defined as a form of Christianity. Really, Fossten would be the best one to explain these distinctions.

I have shown overwhelming evidence that Jefferson didn't believe that rights come from some divine god.

You have cited a large amount of facts (though I think I have probably cited more quotes at this point), but none of that evidence supports the idea that Jefferson did not believe that rights come from God. They simply don't support the idea that Jefferson did believe that rights come from God.

The degree of difference is irrelevant. It doesn't matter how many quotes you cite that are unclear; those quotes have to be viewed as consistent with the quotes that are clear on this subject. To try and argue that those unclear quotes counter those clear quotes is to attempt to mischaracterize and read too much into those unclear quotes.

So, you are arguing theory Shag - just a question here - it is basically a theory that rights are given to us from God?

Yep, a theory that the Framers assumed when founding this country.

Not presumptuous - I was going beyond, what is wrong with that in discussion?

You have to first be on the same page with everyone in the discussion before you can "go beyond". I tried to bring you up to speed, but you quickly demonstrated that you were not interested in that. Cal was much more patient but you were still trying to "go beyond". You can't have an honest debate without a common ground first. If the understanding of reality is different (which is clearly the case), then you need to come to some sort of understanding, if possible. Otherwise, the whole "going beyond" thing is irrelevant.

And I do know the history being discussed.

Well, you clearly know a distortion of it. Unfortunately, there has been a lot of historical revisionism over the past fifty years. To get to the truth, you have to go to primary sources as much as possible. Howard Zinn (A People's History of the United States), Noam Chomsky and Gore Vidal are prime examples of leftist's revising history to support their own views. Many college courses across the nation require the works of these liars and frauds as required reading (I have wasted too much of my life consuming that propaganda and having to regurgitate it to pass a class).

Just because my 'viewpoint' regarding history is different, doesn't mean I don't know it.

No but, looking at the historical facts, it is clear that so much of what you know it wrong.

As far as showing quotes about property rights/pursuit of happiness. There is a difference between them. The fact that Jefferson included pursuit of happiness within the DOI, shows again that he was changing away from historical views of the subject. Lockes' idea that all men should have the ability to own property is so much smaller than Jefferson's idea of having the right to pursue happiness.

Yes, Jefferson and the Framers did expand on the idea of property rights to cover any right that was not a "personal right" in Jefferson's view. However, when it came time to create that social contract (the Constitution) and they decided to add an enumeration of those rights into that contract, the made it clear that the right to property was listed as one of those rights (5th Amendment).

 

[foxpaws]

Yes, Jefferson and the Framers did expand on the idea of property rights to cover any right that was not a "personal right" in Jefferson's view. However, when it came time to create that social contract (the Constitution) and they decided to add an enumeration of those rights into that contract, the made it clear that the right to property was listed as one of those rights (5th Amendment).

Shag – If you can’t tell, I was trying to figure out if you think that the ‘inalienable’ rights within the DOI can be changed or altered. That is what almost all of this has been about, at least for me… Most people who believe that they are handed down from ‘on high’ don’t think they can be. Others, who think that they are part of the human condition, believe that they can be altered or changed.

So, after all this, it appears that you think that it is OK for those big ‘three’ as it were, to be changed or altered – correct? I am just checking here, because it would be rather a departure from what ‘most’ people who view rights as ‘divine derived’ believe.

Because, then we can get into something far, far more interesting… What, why, and how should those rights be changed and altered when the time comes. Those rights which do not deal with ‘civil’ rights – such as are put forth the in the constitution, but those rights which are ‘natural’ rights – the ones in the DOI…

Maybe we could ‘discuss’ instead of argue. Now, we have a basis where we can start. Natural rights can be altered, expanded on, or changed, and in fact, have been altered in the past (Jefferson – property to pursuit of happiness). And it is OK to change them - right?

Well, you clearly know a distortion of it. Unfortunately, there has been a lot of historical revisionism over the past fifty years. To get to the truth, you have to go to primary sources as much as possible. Howard Zinn (A People's History of the United States), Noam Chomsky and Gore Vidal are prime examples of leftist's revising history to support their own views. Many college courses across the nation require the works of these liars and frauds as required reading (I have wasted too much of my life consuming that propaganda and having to regurgitate it to pass a class).

Oh, and as far as revising history – you certainly came up with your own that have obviously been influenced by the religious right – Paine an atheist – hahahaha, Jefferson a Christian – ah, no. The only thing I ‘didn’t’ get right according to you (or revised) was that Jefferson viewed rights as human derived. That is opinion, neither of us can go back and find that out. I hopefully haven't stated anything that was 'just' factually incorrect. Our viewpoints differ, but I don't think I got dates, quotes, religious beliefs, etc. factually wrong. I know Locke, Hobbs, etc. So, quit blithering on about it.

Can we now get into something far more interesting? What rights do you think might need changing or altering in the future, would we need to add additional rights at some point? And how, as a republic, do you think we should address changing those inalienable rights.

However I fear, it will now only be us, and perhaps not as interesting as this could have been. I was hoping to involve others, but, because we had to go through this whole stupid debate thing to get to this point, they have probably all left… Maybe at least Cal has stuck around... or someone else that would like to discuss instead of argue.

Can we get beyond the whole debate thing now shag - and start discussing? I would love to find out more about how you see the future, not just the doom and gloom part, but the part where we, the United States, continue on. Maybe find out more about your human condition? Have you been influenced by Heinlein - and his view of rights in the future. Maybe by David Brin. How about Huxley - and certainly Orwell. Maybe Skinner.

And is there anyone else who actually stuck this out? What are your viewpoints on rights in the future? No right answers, no wrong ones, just explore for a while.

Now is the time to interject the 'created in his image'.... in this part shag...