I have been inspired to ask this question as a result of comments posted recently by William and further back by posts of Rollingdude. I've long felt that honest discussions about this are never held. Constitutionalists/Libertarians/Tea Party Types, remind us at length about what are and aren't rights based on the constitution and their belief that only THEY really know what the founding fathers intended. While I typically don't dispute what are commonly accepted as rights under the constitution, I do question who actually grants and defends those rights and subsequently, who gets to decide when more rights (or less) are required.
Regardless of how enlightened the constitution is, it's meaningless without a society that is willing to live by it and defend it with blood. Without police, without military, the constitution is a high falutin demand that those with power show some respect and decency to those without money, connections, weapons or cunning. If we weren't willing to pay taxes and generally respect the rights of others, the constitution would be no better then toilette paper. While the founding fathers may have had the brains to create such an enlightened concept of government, it is the little people who actually defend it and make it reality. They are the ones who die for it.
In one of William's rants about GMO's, he made a comment that we absolutely CANNOT create a right to know what is in our food by simply reading the label. Instead, we should have to scour the internet to find out what is in our food and do our own homework. I find this truly fascinating. Implied, in that is a right for food companies like Monsanto to "hide" something that is controversial to consumers, while said consumers, who participate in the market and essentially ARE the market, are not allowed to tell producers "these are the rules you will play by if you want to participate in our market" By creating the constitution, the founding fathers told the world, "These are the principles of our democracy and if you come here, these are the rules you will abide by." Strangely, the ones who die for the latter statement are not allowed to make the former statement to producers.
Seemingly, to some in this country, nothing in humanity is really a valid right if the founding fathers of the United States did not identify it as such 200 odd years ago. I see it differently of course. While the founding fathers smashed the absolute control of monarchy, they sort of spread the power out to the next layer, namely those with money. In both cases, it was still the little people who died for and defended the interests of those at the top. At various times, our society has looked at reality and said, "This is unacceptable." We weren't quite that high minded when it came to slavery, but we were when it came to giving women the right to vote and with civil rights in the 60's. Of course, constitutionalists are appalled by this development, see: voter registration laws.
These days, the common belief seems to be that by attempting to protect the voice of the minority in the 1700's, the founding fathers fully intended that in 2013 the minority should be allowed to dictate to everyone else the way things should be and that as always, the little people should keep living in poop to defend that minority's right to tell the rest of us what to do. Someday soon, I'd like to think people will wise up a bit.
Our US Constitution was about being free period. It was about limited government and therefor giving power to the people - Christians that is. If the people sought representation from decent members with integrity then "right" would be done. There is right and there is wrong by Judeo-Christian standards and therefor no need to philosophize the terms of "right" and "wrong". If you need elaboration then you are near the point of no return spiritually - good luck to you on that one.
ReplyDeleteHello Angie. On part of this, I will agree. The founding fathers were about giving power to white Christians while simultaneously taking it away from Kings and the Church. By your words though, if you specify that the constitution was about giving power to the Christian people, then you can't really say the constitution is about being free period. Given that women couldn't vote and black people were slaves, you are already negating the declaration that all men were created equal.
DeleteMy post was not about right and wrong, it was about the freedom to engage in behaviors that we call rights. The constitution, like the bible, is a compilation of words. To a person who lives in the wilderness, literally, neither has any literal use beyond kindling or toilette paper. What we are really talking about is living amongst each other in a society. The constitution gave us protected freedoms, but it also took away freedoms. You seem aligned with a Judeo Christian outlook on life. Peace be with you.
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.
DeleteWhat gives us the rights to anything Max? Surely you gest.
Go read some more Zinn.
Oh yeah Max. You drone on about minorities gridlocking your utopian dreams. I remind you that our house, and a majority of elected officials in DC do not agree with your socialist wet dreams.
DeleteThat is not what I said Max. Christian values and rules would have been the guiding force behind legislation. It was not for Christians but governed by the values - big difference Max. That is why our Bill of Rights specifically protected freedom OF religion yet God is acknowledged as the Creator.
DeleteAngie,
DeleteWow, do I ever disagree with that! Separation of church and state was an important concept, yes? But delegating power to Christians only, apparently, doesn't exactly mesh weel with freedom of religion, no? Afterall, by your view, Christians having been delegated the power doesn't bode well for non-christians, and that includes athiests.
Jean
William,
DeleteCan you find it in yourself to carry on discourse without being snarky and insulting? Not that you're singularly guilty of it, but I happen to think that style doesn't add much. If you disagree with Max's views, you are quite capable of articulating it better than the way you do. God knows Max and I don't agree on many things, and he can be exasperating at times (not that I am, ever), but sniping is so childish.
Jean
As usual William, you haven't said anything. First you quote self evident truths and then you call me a socialist. Is that really discourse? Then you call me a stoner below. You are so easily provoked into acting like a child. You haven't really disputed my premise William. It's one thing to claim you have rights, but those rights are easily squashed if you don't have someone to back you up. That someone, basically, is society.
DeleteMany of your arguments seem to converge on a premise that we have no rights BUT the inalienable rights described by the founding fathers and that present day society has no moral standing to add anything else as protected, nor does society have any right to stipulate rules of the market place. If it takes a society to defend the rights described by the founding fathers, why doesn't society have the power to add whatever it chooses?
Angie, I get what you are saying. But, I keep coming back to a particular question. If we make the assertion that the country is to be run with an acknowledgement that God is the creator and God's laws dictate such and such behavior, are we not just creating a theocracy?
Jean, exasperation is in the eye of beholder ;>
DeleteMax,
Delete"Mine eyes have seen . . . " :-D
Hopefully you'll find that oddly apropos, give the discussion path.
Jean
Max, our founders fought the revolution and threw out the tyrant based on the premise that men (society) can't grant rights to other men! Our rights are God given!
DeleteYou live under this constitution and yet you continue to spew your totalitarian hogwash.
For you to even post a header in this manner shows your shallow nature. And as for the term stoner, you yourself have described yourself with this very term.
Jean, unfortunately your interpretation of truth as snarky and childish behaviour shows your academic slip. The mouths of babes so many times overshadow the so called sophisticates and their learned, misguided pap.
DeleteOpen your eyes Jean, our boy Max is a confirmed Marxist trained seal.
Arf,arf.
"Our rights are God given! "
DeleteTaken a look at Egypt today?
William,
Delete"Jean, unfortunately your interpretation of truth as snarky and childish behaviour shows your academic slip. The mouths of babes so many times overshadow the so called sophisticates and their learned, misguided pap.
Open your eyes Jean, our boy Max is a confirmed Marxist trained seal."
Truth, or opinion? To what do you refer?
Academic slip? You think I'm an academic? I'm not in academia.
I don't care about Max's ideological bent, or of anyone else's for that matter. I've said before we disagree on things. Gee. So what? If we all agreed on everything, life would be a really, really boring place after about a week. I just am much more appreciative of presenting evidence to bolster one's perspective. If it is more a matter os opinion than factual, then that's that. I just don't see much of a justification for some of the tone.
Is it something about testorone levels that drives some of that?
Jean
Jean, this board and similar ones are for just that, disagreement. They are also in my opinion for calling a spade a spade. Max's "it takes a village" attitude is again on display. Society determining my rights? I don't think so! Only God can determine my rights!
DeleteAs for presenting evidence, have you read any of my topics concerning GMO's?? I have challenged the "smart money ECO warriors" over and over again with facts and truth. What do I get in return? Touchy feelie regurgitated babble. The bilge is so predictable and shallow.
Please save your breath lecturing me about civility. So many have come and gone on these collections of blogs being unable to withstand the withering enfilade. Carol comes to mind as one of a group that finds solace and warmth within safe cocoons accompanied by others of delicate constitutions. Pulling muscles in their arms as they pat themselves on their own backsides.
If you agree with Max and think that men can grant rights to other men then so be it. That is your choice. And as far as forming an attack based on adolescent references to testosterone, well, we'll leave the natural bodily component debate for another day.
Have a sweet day Jean.
"Only God can determine my rights!"
DeleteBut the reality is this William, while an unseen God may, in your opinion, determine your rights, that determination doesn't mean very much if you live amongst a society of people. Mormons, at one time, believed that God determined that Mormon men had the right to have multiple wives and in fact, so did the bible. Society has decided otherwise and ironically, they did so for very political reasons, namely because they assumed a man with ten wives would essentially have 11 votes at election time.
If you have those rights William, what gives you those rights and not the Indians who occupied America before the Europeans came here? What good were their God determined rights in the face of the soldiers guns. All of us here have enormous freedoms BECAUSE we chose to live in society and collectively defend those rights. Because my rights are largely defended, I don't need to spend valuable hours of my day looking over my shoulder at who will cheat me next. When I am wronged, I at least have the possibility of recourse. That is because of organized society.
With your GMO's, you keep forgetting a simple premise. Many people don't want them. Period. Your eternal screaming response is, MY SCIENCE IS SUPERIOR. NOW EAT MY FUCKING CORN! Regardless of your science, people don't want it. that is freedom.
Max, what causes your heart to beat? Hearts beat for thousands of years before we could see inside of them with an electron microscope. We still don't have he slightest idea what caused the first heart to beat.
DeleteThe American Indians roamed naturally free for century after century. Yes they were even free to take multiple wives to sustain their populations in trying times. Which seams natural.
Naturally Africans would prefer to protect their children's eyesight with nutrition, even if it is genetically manufactured, if the stylist Europeans hadn't eco propagandized the debate.
Men can discover, men can codify, men can even amend. What men cannot do is originate natural human rights. Even you Max are just a finite man.
An estimated 250 million preschool children are vitamin A deficient and it is likely that in vitamin A deficient areas a substantial proportion of pregnant women is vitamin A deficient.
DeleteAn estimated 250 000 to 500 000 vitamin A-deficient children become blind every year, half of them dying within 12 months of losing their sight.
"we should have to scour the internet to find out what is in our food and do our own homework."
ReplyDeleteHint: type in GMO Monsanto. In about ten seconds you can find anything you need.
Do your own d--- work stoner.
The Constitution is an amazing document, totally radical for it's time. And the minds that created it were genius.
ReplyDeleteMax, I will grant you much of your criticism in terms of its removing power from the monarchy and placing it into the hands of rich white guys, but I think that they understood that and they knew that eventually the rights outlined in the Constitution would apply to every U.S. citizen. I'm not sure that they considered women much, and definitely not the Indians, but slavery was an issue that was debated fiercely since the formation of the country.
The genius of the founders is that they understood their limitations. They understood that society, technology, culture, commerce, security, would all change over time.
The rights we're discussing that are granted by the document are outlined in "amendments" which literally means "changes". They built a mechanism into the document allowing us to change it as needed.
That, to me, is the real genius of the both the Founders and the Constitution. Yes, they were men of their time but they crafted a document that is still relevant today and can remain relevant as time passes by.
And yes, you're right. It does require many mechanisms/people willing to enforce it.
But still, it's pretty cool ...
I believe the document is absolutely relative today and am amazed that it came into being. If you stop and think about everything that had to happen in more or less a perfect way to create the environment that lead to the constitution and how fate brought together the founding fathers to that spot at that time. Looking at our world today, I don't think such a thing could ever happen again.
DeleteAs an honest question, I continue to ponder whether the founding fathers really intended for democracy to reach the man on the street. Whether they fully intended for all citizens to eventually have the same rights matters less to me then the fact that they left a mechanism in place for society to decide they did after the fact, which it did through the amendments. Like you said, that is just a piece of the genius behind what they did.
Still, I don't mean this as a criticism per se, but more of an observation that I believe the educated men and businessmen of the day had most of the power and believed they should. The constitution provided rights for citizens and by doing so created a basis for a "free" society and the importance of that can't be undersold. However, I still have a nagging feeling they believed it would always be a collective handful of empowered men who would ultimately decide what was best for the rest of us. Over time, I think we have had legislators who truly believed in a common good and governed in a way that brought advancement to a great many people. Other times, such as in the last 30 years, I think we have had legislators who have presided over a steady undoing of what helped the country to thrive.
In some ways, I feel like it's one of those things going full circle. First the constitution was created and used to break absolute power and swing it to the people and now it's being used as a club to block citizens from having a say in the society they live in.
pfunky,
DeleteCool it is. A little sidebar: one little bit of the Preamble has so often seemed so insightful to me:
'...that among these are . . . the pursuit of happiness."
It's that one word (ok, two), pursuit (of), and NOT just happiness by itself. I don't think 'pursuit of' just popped in there; it was very deliberate. I see that as meaning we all entitled to chase after our wants and dreams, that we are not automatically entitled to them.
Granted, not completely on topic, as I think the GMO thing is what is behind this thread.
Jean
Agreed, Jean.
DeleteI think that that every word in the original document was deliberately chosen. Both vague and deliberate.
What a great piece of writing ...
Jean;
ReplyDeleteIf we are talking about facts then you will have to accept the fact that our nation was founded on Judeo-Christian values. The concept of separation of Church and State protects us from ONE DOMINATE RELIGION. It does NOT sanctify the exclusion of God and in fact as William has pointed out reaffirms the belief of God the Creator. Regardless of what you want to believe, this country was founded by and built by Christians for the most part.
Supporters of political correctness of today and enemies of Judeo-Christian values demand that we ignore history and even attempt to rewrite it. Keep in mind that the Mormons were run out of town due to polygamy and that is why the settled in Utah. They were not executed, just run out and allowed to live their lives in a place that they established. Keep in mind that polygamy is not looked upon highly by Christians.
Angie,
DeleteSo we're clear, I don't condone the silly "Keep God out of public places" atttitude of many. I happen to be Christian. I also happen to think that, even tho the Constituion was written at the time when most immigrants or their descendants were mostly Christian, that the separation of church and state was intended to not force a particular religious belief on the citizens. It has since gone rather extreme, I think. I also think the notion that people could practice whatever religion they wish, short of obvious exceptions like cannibalism or violence in the name of Allah, is in line with the tenet. And I do not think Judeo-christian concepts should be restrictive, other than to ensure life or liberty.
I have little tolerance for political correctness. Please don't take me there; I could rant forever. PC and insulting conversation aren't the same thing. And please, I know quite well I don't have to visit this site if I don't want to. I do, because the conversations can get very interesting, but the tone from and between some of you can get to be a real distraction. Childish and sophomoric.
Polygamy and Christians? True, what you said. But the same goes for divorce, living out of wedlock, having children out of wedlock. That goes, I think, to separation of church and state. Now, the responsibilities that go with those actions, that's where things like the "taking a village concept" start to get irritating, really irritating.
Allowing two homosexual men or lesbian women to be referred to as married? No, don't care for that. If they want to be able to share their insurance, benefits, that's their business. I also don't have any time for the concept of letting them raise children as their own. I rather think I would find it weird, to say the least.
In case you were wondering where my ideological arrow points, OK?
Max;
ReplyDeleteWe are not nor ever have been a theocracy for just look at all the different Christian religions. Not to mention the American Indian and his respect towards the Creator.
Judeo-Christian values do not contradict a civilized society. No one will be forced to attend services on Sundays.
Judeo-Christian values include;
employees and employer: an honest days work for a fair wadge
do not steel, lie, slander.... you know the drill .
So now let us choose a hard one like homosexuality. We do not believe in stoning them. We do not want to associate with homosexuals but many Christians that I know would NEVER condone hurting someone like that. We just do not want a guy in drag teaching third grade. We also find it appalling that taxpayer money would go to sex changes in prisons.
Angie,
Delete"giving power to the people - Christians that is."
I had difficulty with that one, yes? Perhaps I've read something into that, but it seemed to suggest people of a certain religious class should somehow hold power. And I strongly disagree with that.
Jean
The Facts are we were founded and built on Judeo-Christian values. No one said that "We the people" meant only Christians it means that our forefathers outlined a constitution using their values (Judeo-Christian values). If the majority of the people are Christian (and that surely was the case in the begrudging of our history) then much is given to the Christians. Yet, let us not forget that we are NOT a democracy but a republic governed by a constitution and therefor non-Christians are also protected for the most part. For this you may thank those with Judeo-Christian values for their foresight and protection.
DeleteAngie,
DeleteI can't disagree with you.
Democratic republic might be a little closer to what we are (or are supposed to be), yes?
Jean
Theft and killing (or some variation thereof) are illegal in most human societies, "Christian" or not.
ReplyDeleteJust as an interesting point of discussion, a rabbi once told me that the "Thou shall not kill" commandment in its original Hebrew translation is, "Thou shall not commit murder". Changes the connotation of that commandment a bit, doesn't it?
Carry on ...
pfunky,
DeleteWell, no, not for me. I always took it that as unfortunate as it may be, murder is more or less that action that is forbidden. Self-defense and war are two easy ones. But that's going by my conscience.
Jean
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteThis guy does a good job of going to the root behind the idea of what a right is.
Delete1215.org
click the blue pill.