> Gel wrote: > The point I'm making is that your Constitution was based on Religious > Morality. > Not on any ill-defined 'natural' rights of man. >
The line "we hold these truths to be self-evident" was changed by Benjamin Franklin just to avoid referencing God. Of course then there's whole separation of church and state thing, along with freedom of religion. This distinct separation was built into our government based on experience of both discrimination and persecution as well as corruption that used the church as justification. There's no doubt that many of the framers were religious, and that many of the rights were derived from religious *precepts*, but you can argue that, for example, murder is wrong because it's self-evident just as well as you can say it's in the Bible or Koran. It's not as if the framers were using arbitrary customs such as eating meat on Friday. They were simply using fundamental rights that have been self-evident to humans since creation. It's my opinion that the law should be used to protect rights, and that the constitution fully supports my view, and can do so exclusive of any religion. So, in the end, it's a perfectly acceptable basis of government to me. ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~| Message: http://www.houseoffusion.com/lists.cfm/link=i:5:191591 Archives: http://www.houseoffusion.com/cf_lists/threads.cfm/5 Subscription: http://www.houseoffusion.com/lists.cfm/link=s:5 Unsubscribe: http://www.houseoffusion.com/cf_lists/unsubscribe.cfm?user=11502.10531.5 Donations & Support: http://www.houseoffusion.com/tiny.cfm/54
