Trent:
You're right that the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution and
the Bill of Rights are very much based on Natural Law. Our Founders were
mostly (if not all) believers in Natural Law.
I find it kind of surprising that you espouse Natural Law and then and then
say they are not God-given rights. The whole premise of Natural Law is that
they flow from the Creator. So you contradict yourself, my friend.
The creator endowed us with a mind that is free, a body that is free;
therefore, all rights flow from this NATURAL freedom.
It's not logical, therefore, to say that "rights" have only existed for 300
years. Rights have always existed. It wasn't until Burke that the idea of
Natural Law was articulated. But the rights preexisted humanity because God
preexisted humanity.
If we are endowed with freedom, do we not have a moral obligation to protect
and defend freedom against those who would enslave us?
As for property rights, you're straining at gnats to read anything into
Jefferson's removal (if he indeed was the one who made the revision)
"property" phrase. All of the founders clearly followed Burke's proscription
that all people have a right to benefit from the fruits of their labor and
not have those fruits taken from them by an unjust government. This was the
whole underpinning of the American Revolution. It is what spurred the Boston
Tea Party. America fought for it's freedom, primarily, to retain the fruits
of its labor and to not be taxed unjustly and without representation.
I watched an American congressman (a Democrat) on CNN today. He's from New
York (in fact, represents the district that the WTC is in, but sorry, I
forget his name). A caller asked him why we don't "impose" democracy on
other parts of the world. This congressman answered that it is clearly
wrong to impose our values on other countries, but that we should stop
supporting countries that do not allow their citizens the same freedoms we
enjoy and that are not democratically elected.
I agree. You seem to want to paint me into a corner (and all of America)
that we want to bomb people for merely disagreeing with us. That's what
nobody, and certainly not me, is saying. We want to bomb people for
attacking us. Why do you think this is wrong? What if it was your country
that was attacked? Should it not defend itself?
I defy you to find one remark I've made that would lead you to the
supposition (which you seem to imply) that I support indiscriminate killing?
Or that I support unjust or unlawful killing. That, in short, I support
murder.
The 10 Commandments do not say, "Thou shall not kill," as many people
mistakenly believe. They say, "Thou shall not murder." There is a world of
difference.
Furthermore, your fixation with "property rights" has me believing you are
either a communist or a socialist. Are you? I would just like to know. If
you are, you are certainly not going to persuade me that Burke was wrong on
this key point of freedom. Marx was wrong, as history has proven.
You seem to have an antipathy toward America and American values. Why? Your
country is not far separated from us culturally. Where does this come from?
What is wrong with America's sense of patriotic duty to defend freedom
whenever and wherever it is attacked, especially when we are attacked on our
own shores?
I must also note that you did not answer my previous question. Is freedom
not worth fighting for and dying for? Is this what you're really saying.
Please be explicit because I'm confused about what you're really saying.
Finally, I note that you close with an ad homninem attack. This is
disappointing coming from you. You seem so much smarter than that. I
generally find that people who engage in such attacks and then vow to
retreat from debate have very small minds and are incapable of sustaining an
intelligent debate. I certainly hope I'm misreading this.
H.
-----Original Message-----
From: Trent Shepherd [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Saturday, September 15, 2001 9:12 PM
To: CF-Community
Subject: RE: They (Americans) can't see why they are hated
You are right about the Bill of Rights.I confused my thoughts of Second
Treatise of Government (1690) by British philosopher John Locke (1632-1704).
"The state of nature has a law of nature to govern it, which obliges
everyone: and reason, which is that law, teaches all mankind, who will but
consult it, that being all equal and independent, no one ought to harm
another in his life, health, liberty, or possessions" [Second Treatise of
Government, 2:6]
Locke's view of natural rights inspired 18th century political reformers
such as Thomas Jefferson, which we see in the opening of the "Declaration of
Independence":
"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, 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."
In an early draft of the Declaration, Jefferson follows Locke more closely
by listing our natural rights as those of life, liberty and property.
However, Jefferson later considered property to be only a means to
happiness.
Whatever!! persue your ideal of freedom, go to as many other countries and
murder as many people as it takes enforcing your idea of freedom. But don't
whinge when people fight back. Other people on this "planet" have just as
much right to disagree.
These values that America espouses are not god given rights, they are very
recent (300 years) maybe they are not the true rights maybe in time PROPERTY
will not be the focus of happiness.
Rights, Guns, Liberty, Happiness, Bombs, Wealth, Missiles all make a free
world.
This will be the last thing I post. The propaganda is more powerfull than
than free thought.
Trent
> -----Original Message-----
> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
> Sent: Sunday, 16 September 2001 11:19 AM
> To: CF-Community
> Subject: RE: They (Americans) can't see why they are hated
>
>
> You mean, you don't believe that the right to be free is worth
> fighting and
> dying for? You would accept the yoke of dictatorship rather than be free?
>
> And where in the Bill of Rights does it say "do no harm"?
>
> I'll answer that for you -- it says it no where. Read it for yourself:
> http://www.nara.gov/exhall/charters/billrights/billrights.html
>
> What we are all taught as school children is that we have a responsibility
> not to trample on the rights of other U.S. citizens. We have a
> responsibility to respect and protect the rights of others. We are also
> taught -- at least I was in the '60s -- that our rights are worth fighting
> and dying for, as men from throughout our history have done.
>
> If men and women had not been willing to make the ultimate
> sacrifice in the
> 1770s, there would be no U.S.A. today. And of course, if people
> of the free
> world had not been willing to stand up to aggressors in the
> 1940s, dictators
> would rule the world today.
>
> As for the Bill of Rights and the Constitution, legal rulings and common
> acceptance of the law have generally found that people within the
> borders of
> the U.S. and terroritories have all of the legal protections therein, not
> just U.S. citizens.
>
> Obviously, in times of war, ensuring due process (Amendment V) before
> killing somebody is not practical. But .... I'm at a lost to proceed here
> .. I'm am so much under the impression that you believe that rather than
> fight, we should just accept the shackles of bondage, that freedom is not
> worth killing and dying for ... that is a frame of mind I find totally
> incomprehensible ... I don't know how to answer it. I mean, yes, we would
> rather not kill in the name of freedom, but ... sometimes ... it MUST be
> done. Freedom must be defended no matter what the cost.
>
> Since you come from a country of freedom, I hope your fellow countrymen do
> not feel as you do, or you soon will no longer be free. It
> certainly wasn't
> the feeling of your countrymen in previous chapters of your nation's
> history, as many of your forebears fought and died valiantly in
> the name of
> freedom.
>
> One final point ... if you think the meaning of the Bill of Rights is very
> clear, you are a very smart man, because legions of lawyers have made
> millions of dollars arguing over what those words mean and how they should
> be applied. Almost all cases taken by the Supreme Court over the last 200
> years have dealt with just those amendments.
>
>
> H.
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Trent Shepherd [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
> Sent: Saturday, September 15, 2001 3:28 PM
> To: CF-Community
> Subject: RE: They (Americans) can't see why they are hated
>
>
> So lo and be hold the right to bear arms and blow the crap out of
> anyone who
> stands in the way of your right
>
> > to pursue the virtues of money (i.e., capitalism (economic
> > freedom), the most important and only righteous economic system),
> > individual rights (which are God-given) and freedom (also God-given)
>
> is your right?
>
> > I think my meaning is clear.
>
>
> that's why I am afraid of Americans.
>
>
> Trent
>
> BTW.
> Look at your own bill of rights which says you have the right to
> pursue all
> the things as long as you do no harm anyone else.
> I think the meaning in this bill was clear!!
>
>
>
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
> > Sent: Sunday, 16 September 2001 3:15 AM
> > To: CF-Community
> > Subject: RE: They (Americans) can't see why they are hated
> >
> >
> > In other words, you want to play semantic games.
> >
> > I think my meaning is clear. You don't need to twist it.
> >
> > As for your final graph. If we stop pursuing power and money and
> > individual
> > rights and freedom (especially the latter three of that list, which are
> > vitally important pursuits), then the terrorists have won. Power
> > under pins
> > the ability to pursue the virtues of money (i.e., capitalism (economic
> > freedom), the most important and only righteous economic system),
> > individual
> > rights (which are God-given) and freedom (also God-given) --
> without these
> > three things, life is not worth living.
> >
> >
> > H.
> >
> >
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Trent Shepherd [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
> > Sent: Saturday, September 15, 2001 1:13 AM
> > To: CF-Community
> > Subject: RE: They (Americans) can't see why they are hated
> >
> >
> > It was not a case of my "missing the point". It was more a case
> of looking
> > at the truth and seeing it for what it really is. I was once taught the
> > difference between truth and honesty. The truth might be "that I
> > went to the
> > bank" however the honesty would also tell you "that while I was there I
> > robbed it" When you use a diluted analogy of a situation
> > substituting sugar
> > for arms the context of meaning changes entirely.
> >
> > [snip]
> >
> > It is a time where as people of the world we can stand up and be
> > accountable
> > for what we have let happen for so long. The pursuit of power and
> > money and
> > individual rights and freedom at the expense of others has got to stop.
> > Perhaps we can think about the freaky hippies of the
> > sixties/seventies with
> > their mantra of "love and compassion". Hey wait a minute are
> these not the
> > same people who have the power and our now running the world. How
> > quickly we
> > become corrupted.
> >
> >
> >
> > Trent Shepherd
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
>
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Get the mailserver that powers this list at http://www.coolfusion.com
Archives: http://www.mail-archive.com/[email protected]/
Unsubscribe: http://www.houseoffusion.com/index.cfm?sidebar=lists
