Founders define the rights of man, a declaration

[Classact]

Hey folks I debated this constitutional topic on a liberal website and had quite a good time so I thought I'd share it here.

I’ve noticed several threads on different forums discussing the inalienable rights granted from the Creator of “life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness” in our founding documents so I thought why not try to put the concept into context as it related to the era. Our current definitions differ greatly of how and why the founders used these particular words but if we could return to that era perhaps we could discover some trends that were glaring opposite examples of why these words were appropriate? We are all very familiar with slavery but many are less aware of the indentured servant system that was prevalent at that time and was in fact existent prior to use of Africans for slavery.

From where did Jefferson pull these words and why is the question? Let me say from the beginning that I think Thomas Jefferson and Thomas Paine were Deists of the “old school” variety of the belief that religion is a fraud and all truth resides within the ability of reason. I say he was old school because the philosophy evolved into religious philosophy by the time he put those particular words to paper but he and Paine did despise the church even though they did play along to get along with the 99.9% of the population that were devout Christians. Go to this link http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_...f_Independence and show me the love of fellow Deists, hey it wasn’t there, wall to wall bible thumpers.



So, things move fast as the Revolution takes place and faster following the revolution and a Jefferson Presidency passes without any law or amendment that resembled the spirit and intent of those famous words he put to paper. In fact two presidents, the 13th and the 17th had their Creator given Unalienable rights Jefferson spoke of sold under his watch as president. http://wiki.answers.com/Q/Who_were_t..._as_young_boys See http://www.absoluteastronomy.com/top...llard_Fillmore and http://www.absoluteastronomy.com/topics/Andrew_Johnson

Referring back to the first link above, Lincoln Presidency revives the famous words of Jefferson and forms them in the legal context which means {see} http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inalienable_rights and
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inalienable_rights and for even more research see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inalien...ights_theories

Question for debate:
If secular “old school” Deist were in the minority at the time of Thomas Jefferson putting into words the statement” 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.” Were the spirit and intent of the words of religious or secular base? Explain your position please.

[darin]

Impossible to be secular - unless All men were endowed by their parents those rights mentioned.

[Missileman]

I'd have to say secular. A religious point of view would never tolerate the use of the generic term "creator". Further, a religous person would never dare allow for "their" creator...it would be "my" or "The".

[5stringJeff]

Question for debate:
If secular “old school” Deist were in the minority at the time of Thomas Jefferson putting into words the statement” 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.” Were the spirit and intent of the words of religious or secular base? Explain your position please.


I'd have to say secular. A religious point of view would never tolerate the use of the generic term "creator". Further, a religous person would never dare allow for "their" creator...it would be "my" or "The".

I absolutely disagree, Missleman. How could a secular author credit a Creator, who in his mind doesn't exist, with inalienable rights? The foundation of Jefferson's argument is that these rights exist apart from government, and that governmnets are to protect these rights. Therefore, Jefferson had to appeal to a higher authority - God.

Now, I won't argue that Deism and traditional Christianity are one and the same. They aren't. In fact, Jefferson uses terms like "divine Providence" and "Nature's God" - terms a Diest, not a traditional Christian, would use. But to say that those are secular terms is a bridge too far.

[Kathianne]

Class Act, good topic. I'll try to write something up soon! :beer:

[Classact]

I absolutely disagree, Missleman. How could a secular author credit a Creator, who in his mind doesn't exist, with inalienable rights? The foundation of Jefferson's argument is that these rights exist apart from government, and that governmnets are to protect these rights. Therefore, Jefferson had to appeal to a higher authority - God.

Now, I won't argue that Deism and traditional Christianity are one and the same. They aren't. In fact, Jefferson uses terms like "divine Providence" and "Nature's God" - terms a Diest, not a traditional Christian, would use. But to say that those are secular terms is a bridge too far.Can we agree that the colonies were predominantly Christian at the time of the preparation of the Declaration of Independence? One person wrote it but many singed it so it must have meant something different to each signer. For the spirit and intent of the declaration to be secular all signers would have to be intolerant towards religion or Christianity, what's the likelihood of that considering at least six of the colonies had some sort of theocracy at the time of the declaration? I'd say like the First Amendment to the constitution the intent and spirit was to be neutral to any denomination of the Christian faith, neutral towards a denomination of Christianity.

[5stringJeff]

Can we agree that the colonies were predominantly Christian at the time of the preparation of the Declaration of Independence? One person wrote it but many singed it so it must have meant something different to each signer. For the spirit and intent of the declaration to be secular all signers would have to be intolerant towards religion or Christianity, what's the likelihood of that considering at least six of the colonies had some sort of theocracy at the time of the declaration? I'd say like the First Amendment to the constitution the intent and spirit was to be neutral to any denomination of the Christian faith, neutral towards a denomination of Christianity.

I think history is clear that the colonies were predominantly Christian, and that Deism was a small but somewhat significant minority. And while the Founders may have thought the Constitution to be neutral towards different denominations of Christianity, it has been expanded, by the plain language of the First Amendment, to be neutral towards all forms of religious belief.

[Classact]

I think history is clear that the colonies were predominantly Christian, and that Deism was a small but somewhat significant minority. And while the Founders may have thought the Constitution to be neutral towards different denominations of Christianity, it has been expanded, by the plain language of the First Amendment, to be neutral towards all forms of religious belief.How?

[5stringJeff]

How?

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof;"

How is this a Christian-specific text?

[Classact]

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof;"

How is this a Christian-specific text?Like the rights of man being self evident, Christianity was the established dominate religion, it was self evident. The American colonies populations were made up of Christians that for the most part had fled Western Europe due to religious persecution. There were Christians and those of Jewish faith, but the dominate religion was Judeo-based Christianity and nothing else.

The history of Europe during the colonization of America that resulted in the Christians fleeing to the New World was based on the break up of the Holy Roman Empire, see article, map and picture of crown here http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Holy_Roman_Empire#King_of_the_Romans . It fell apart with a war that ended with the Peace of Westphalia http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peace_of_Westphalia that created a break up of the Catholic-Roman control. With the treaty new nations maps were drawn and religion remained entangled with the new governments in the form of denominations of Christianity that resulted. Keep in mind that the Holy Roman Empire ended in the 1800's so that means there were revolutions across Europe and ours in the US. The revolutions base was the control of the Catholic and later Christian denominations Church in combination with KINGS over the people.

The American Revolution was followed by the French Revolution and then it took England another thirty years to fully transition into a representative government it is today.

The Founding Fathers didn't want a particular denomination of Christianity to dominate politics or cloud the government with religion; it wanted to be neutral towards the differing denominations to protect religion from government.

[Missileman]

I absolutely disagree, Missleman. How could a secular author credit a Creator, who in his mind doesn't exist, with inalienable rights? The foundation of Jefferson's argument is that these rights exist apart from government, and that governmnets are to protect these rights. Therefore, Jefferson had to appeal to a higher authority - God.

Now, I won't argue that Deism and traditional Christianity are one and the same. They aren't. In fact, Jefferson uses terms like "divine Providence" and "Nature's God" - terms a Diest, not a traditional Christian, would use. But to say that those are secular terms is a bridge too far.

Secular doesn't mean atheist.

[Classact]

Secular doesn't mean atheist.Secular, when speaking about a person means http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/secular so I'd guess Jefferson was secular as a secular priest. He was very religious but didn't agree with any particular denomination and to prove it he wrote his own bible. http://www.angelfire.com/co/JeffersonBible/


This is a background of Jefferson's thought on the First Amendment

In June 1779 the introduction of Jefferson's bill on religious liberty touched off a quarrel that caused turmoil in Virginia for 8 years. The bill was significant as no other state--indeed, no other nation--provided for complete religious liberty at that time. Jefferson's bill stated "that all men shall be free to profess, and by argument to maintain, their opinions on matters of religion, and that the same shall in no wise diminish, enlarge, or affect their civil capacities." Many Virginians regarded the bill as an attack upon Christianity. It did not pass until 1786, and then mainly through the perseverance of James Madison. Jefferson, by then in France, congratulated Madison, adding that "it is honorable for us to have produced the first legislature who had the courage to declare that the reason of man may be trusted with the formation of his own opinions."http://americanrevwar.homestead.com/files/tjeffers.htm

Virginia had a very strong church that Jefferson disagreed with, which wasn't a Baptist Church... Jefferson assured a Baptist minister that no other denomination or his would be indorsed by the federal government and from that historians have built the foundation of the wall of separation.

[Kathianne]

Like the rights of man being self evident, Christianity was the established dominate religion, it was self evident. The American colonies populations were made up of Christians that for the most part had fled Western Europe due to religious persecution. There were Christians and those of Jewish faith, but the dominate religion was Judeo-based Christianity and nothing else.

The history of Europe during the colonization of America that resulted in the Christians fleeing to the New World was based on the break up of the Holy Roman Empire, see article, map and picture of crown here http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Holy_Roman_Empire#King_of_the_Romans . It fell apart with a war that ended with the Peace of Westphalia http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peace_of_Westphalia that created a break up of the Catholic-Roman control. With the treaty new nations maps were drawn and religion remained entangled with the new governments in the form of denominations of Christianity that resulted. Keep in mind that the Holy Roman Empire ended in the 1800's so that means there were revolutions across Europe and ours in the US. The revolutions base was the control of the Catholic and later Christian denominations Church in combination with KINGS over the people.

The American Revolution was followed by the French Revolution and then it took England another thirty years to fully transition into a representative government it is today.

The Founding Fathers didn't want a particular denomination of Christianity to dominate politics or cloud the government with religion; it wanted to be neutral towards the differing denominations to protect religion from government.
I think that your thinking that the Founders wanted Christianity to be a root of freedom in and of itself misplace. I would have to search more than I have time for currently, but seems where you want to go. In all honesty, my take is they were Christians comfortable in their majority, able to say, 'no walls, welcome all' who will abide by the rule of law.

What I get from the Constitution, that is vastly different than the Declaration, is the lack of god, in any form. Yet brought up in 1st Amendment, indeed. I'd never argue against the times, but they were constantly shifting at that time.

I'm always amazed at the proximity between Hobbes and Locke, timewise. Yet their worlds were so different.

[Psychoblues]

The founders also said that "All Men Are Created Equal" even though they knew in their hearts that wasn't true even amongst themselves at the time and considering the practises prevalent at the time of the writing .

I maintain my persistent method of voting habits. To hell with what any of them say as most of it is lies or at least mischaracterizations anyway. I more closely examine what they have done and any propensities of them I might glean from that examination.

There's always someone that comes along to skew the issues, isn't there?!?!??!?!?!?!?!?!??!?!?

Anyone up for a cool one?!?!?!?!?!???!?!?!?!

:beer::cheers2::beer:

Psychoblues

[Classact]

I think that your thinking that the Founders wanted Christianity to be a root of freedom in and of itself misplace. I would have to search more than I have time for currently, but seems where you want to go. In all honesty, my take is they were Christians comfortable in their majority, able to say, 'no walls, welcome all' who will abide by the rule of law. I think the problem some of the founding fathers had with the foundation established by the church in history was that of aristocracy, if you take a look at Jefferson’s bio http://americanrevwar.homestead.com/files/tjeffers.htm and go to the section “revolutionary legislator” you will see he had a real problem with entail http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/entail and primogeniture http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/primogeniture . Because of the established system in the state (king system) and church of using these dynamics the rich, powerful and educated class of the American’s had also adopted the system to include the differing denominations of American churches. The founders didn’t have a problem with Christianity or any of the denominations of Christianity but rather the class structure that had evolved over history that limited treating “all people equal”. I conclude that the founders decided that Christianity was an asset to America that tied all the differing sects into a nationalist tribe and that in order to break the chain of entail and primogeniture no single denomination could be lifted higher than another. Better yet, end the chain of entail and primogeniture in the assumption of “who counts” when it comes to government not being based on aristocracy but rather merit determined by “the people.” If you can endure reading this, I read it twice, it pretty much states what I’ve tried to state; a letter to John Adams from Thomas Jefferson. http://www.tncrimlaw.com/civil_bible/natural_aristocracy.htm


What I get from the Constitution, that is vastly different than the Declaration, is the lack of god, in any form. Yet brought up in 1st Amendment, indeed. I'd never argue against the times, but they were constantly shifting at that time. I always call the base Constitution a social Darwinist document in that it establishes the Executive Branch, the Senate and the Supreme Court in the hands of an aristocracy. Only in the House of Representatives are the average folks represented if you look at it from the perspective of Jefferson in the above letter. At the time of the American Revolution over 90% of Americans were literate, in that they could read, but that was because the different denominations demanded they learn to read to read the bible. The people weren’t ignorant nor were their church leaders and the entire culture was aware of the age of enlightenment and both the aristocracy of state and federal government (to be) were aware of the debate and all citizens were influenced through their churches. If you go to http://history-world.org/age_of_enlightenment.htm and start reading at The Enlightenment And The Age Of Reason In Philosophy and continue reading until you reach the section The Reaction Against Reason you will have a good background for how Jefferson, Paine, Smith and Franklin form their opinions [maybe]. What did you take from that?

Regardless, the Constitution couldn’t be ratified until the amendments were added to it, why, because the “folks” were smart enough to understand that without some individual rights they were back where they had started when the American Revolution started being taxed without being represented in a meaningful way.


I'm always amazed at the proximity between Hobbes and Locke, timewise. Yet their worlds were so different.Excellent observation, read the lead http://oregonstate.edu/instruct/phl302/philosophers/hobbes.html and http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/locke/ interestingly both were educated by the church.

[Classact]

Serious debate of Jefferson should include this background of the arguments of Jefferson and Patrick Henry on the Virginia Statute of Religious Freedom http://www.pbs.org/jefferson/enlight/religi.htm Here is a video from Baylor University http://www.baylortv.com/video.php?id=000842 that provides backing for most of my talking points. It is long but gets to the meat of the conversation at the 32 minute (• Windows Media (streaming, 300kbps)) and you can go there on the buffering slide bar quickly. However I recommend the entire video to immerse yourself in the era so you can fully understand the debate.

[Kathianne]

...

Excellent observation, read the lead http://oregonstate.edu/instruct/phl302/philosophers/hobbes.html and http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/locke/ interestingly both were educated by the church.

What a difference 40 years made, from the end of "Dark Ages" to the entrance of "Age of Enlightenment." I've always been fascinated by it.

[Mugged Liberal]

I’ve just read most of this thread and feel compelled to say it’s the most interesting thing I’ve seen on the site thus far. It has raised my regard significantly for those who have contributed to it. I would not dare to contribute to this discussion without doing much more reading than I have done or that I have the time for.

[Rick OShea]

Focusing on "endowed by their Creator" as a statement of theology is incorrect.

It was a statement of political philosophy; it is simply a rebuttal and rebuke to the British Monarch's "divine" right to arbitrarily rule, nothing more.

Read some of the works the framers used to frame this republic (Locke, Sidney) that outlined this new concept of inherent rights and the concept of "legitimate" government. Each and every one was written as an indictment of the Crown and as rebuttals to other political treatises (Bodin, Filmer etc) endorsing the monarchy and validating the King's "God given" power (from direct heredity from Adam).

The statement that our rights are "endowed by their Creator" is only establishing a maxim guiding the fight for independence, that our rights are not gift from the magistrate but are an innate part of us that we bring with us before we enter into a social compact (government) established to protect those pre-existing rights . . .


"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, . . . "

[Yurt]

I’ve just read most of this thread and feel compelled to say it’s the most interesting thing I’ve seen on the site thus far. It has raised my regard significantly for those who have contributed to it. I would not dare to contribute to this discussion without doing much more reading than I have done or that I have the time for.

and what value are your posts? that you get to give your opinion without actually debating.....and yet you complain about others and feuds and not debating....

weird

[Classact]

Focusing on "endowed by their Creator" as a statement of theology is incorrect.

It was a statement of political philosophy; it is simply a rebuttal and rebuke to the British Monarch's "divine" right to arbitrarily rule, nothing more.

Read some of the works the framers used to frame this republic (Locke, Sidney) that outlined this new concept of inherent rights and the concept of "legitimate" government. Each and every one was written as an indictment of the Crown and as rebuttals to other political treatises (Bodin, Filmer etc) endorsing the monarchy and validating the King's "God given" power (from direct heredity from Adam).

The statement that our rights are "endowed by their Creator" is only establishing a maxim guiding the fight for independence, that our rights are not gift from the magistrate but are an innate part of us that we bring with us before we enter into a social compact (government) established to protect those pre-existing rights . . .


"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, . . . "I don't think you are correct in your assumption. I do agree to an extent that during the age of enlightenment much of the discussion was to do with the right of the Church and the King and their base for authority but disagree with your conclusion. If you go back and read the links on age of enlightenment and view the video in my last post you'll come to a quite different outcome.