we do disagree that the People do not have the right to revolt against an oppressive govt. and to form a govt of our own choosing.
I don't disagree with what it states in the Declaration of Independence - I disagree with this "our" business which your statements appear to suggest consists of you and two or three buddies. If you are speaking of the nation as a whole (and not just some splinter faction), then we do agree.
It is a moral right rather than a legal one
For Christianity, by identifying truth with faith, must teach-and, properly understood, does teach-that any interference with the truth is immoral. A Christian with faith has nothing to fear from the facts
no, meade, I was using Our in the sense of We, in the sense of We the People of the United States (and the world , really). You were included in my use of Our. I thought that capitalizing Our made that fairly clear, but it appears that I was mistaken.
your quibbling about legal or moral right to revolt is just silly, and intellectually dishonest, IMHO. frankly I am a bit disappointed that you even make the argument, seeing as how you are well aware of the purpose of the second amendment and can understand exactly what our declaration says. the constitution only bolsters the declaration and the rights it espouses.
I do appreciate that you do give some credence to our declaration, but, you don t seem to accept/admit that it, and the rights it lays out are part and parcel of this nation, and if the constitution ever evolves to the point where life , liberty and the pursuit of happiness are no longer allowed, We the People, may dissolve our Govt.
You seem to think the Declaration and the Constitution are the same thing. I suggest you look at the Bill of Rights - the right to revolution is not enshrined there.
Therefore, there is no "legal" right to revolt. There is a moral right which I regard as higher than legality.
You may think it silly if you wish, but there is a huge difference which the Founders recognized in writing the Declaration. The "right" they claimed was one above and beyond the law as laid down by any human - it originates with the Creator.
You really are quite exasperating (and I say this as a chief exasperator) in not accepting agreement when it is there, and turning a true observation into another cause of conflict. I suggest we leave this now, status quo. We agree where it is important
For Christianity, by identifying truth with faith, must teach-and, properly understood, does teach-that any interference with the truth is immoral. A Christian with faith has nothing to fear from the facts
Well Meade--there are a lot of rights, both legal and moral, which are not enshrined in the Bill of Rights. Those amendments were not intended to be exhaustive, but to list certain things the national government (and later, after the 14th amendment, the states cannot do).
you do seem to ignore the elephant in the room, the 2nd amendment, which is (italics) an obvious and unsubtle enshrinement and preservative of the ability and, I believe, the right to revolt.
by the way, I don t really consider this as "conflict". I think that we have had a fairly reasonable and civil political debate today.
sorry but I have to add one more point about the lack of enshrinement in the Bill of Rights.
there was no need for enshrinement because certain "Truths" were held to be "Self Evident", and were widely accepted as such at the time. Tho, I m fairly sure that you are well aware of this already.
The 2nd Amendment speaks to the need for the nation, the United States, to maintain armed and trained militia to defend itself against aggression. It does not suggest that one state should decide to overthrow the government. But let that be.
The importance of moral vs. legal right is seen in the very instance of slavery. It was a legal right to "own" a slave. It was a moral right that the slave should be freed. We must always be clear on the difference.
Yes, of course moral rights are held to be self-evident.
For Christianity, by identifying truth with faith, must teach-and, properly understood, does teach-that any interference with the truth is immoral. A Christian with faith has nothing to fear from the facts
The Declaration, as beautiful as it is, really is what Sue said - a Dear John letter. It certainly isn't a Constitution. And - hold on to your hat wes - It has ABSOLUTELY NO LEGAL EFFECT.
“I ask no favor for my sex. All I ask of our brethren is that they take their feet off our necks.” ~ Ruth Bader Ginsburg, paraphrasing Sarah Moore Grimké
Guinevere wrote:The Declaration, as beautiful as it is, really is what Sue said - a Dear John letter.
Yeah, I've reconsidered that. Since it was a public declaration, it's more like un-friending your now-ex, changing your status from "in a relationship" to "single," and writing a bitchy post for all your friends about what a jerk s/he was I can't believe I put up with that shit for so long.
EXCEPT as being reflective of the state of mind and experiences of the framers of the constitution. True, it preceded the Consiottution by 13 years, but it does shed some light on what kind of a country they didn't (and did) want.
guin, I can t help but to believe that the Declaration has a much deeper meaning to you than solely the meaning attributed to it by sue u.
her flippant and derisory tone does not reflect any admiration at all, in my view.
I believe that I clearly expressed my views earlier today, in this thread, and tho I am able to shift my thinking as I learn, I doubt that anything will change my views on this subject. anything further would only be argumentative and repetitive.
wesw wrote:sorry but I have to add one more point about the lack of enshrinement in the Bill of Rights.
there was no need for enshrinement because certain "Truths" were held to be "Self Evident", and were widely accepted as such at the time. Tho, I m fairly sure that you are well aware of this already.
In fact the idea that individuals had rights simply because they were human* was a rare and a radical revolutionary idea at that time. It was not 'widely accepted'. See: "The Rights of Man and the Citizen" and Thomas Paines "The Rights of Man".
yrs,
rubato
Human, Male, Adult and property owners, in most cases.
wesw wrote:I meant widely accepted by the colonists, widely enough to fight and win a war against an empire, no?
Weak recovery for an ignorant bullshit comment. You would be better off just admitting the error.
The idea was new to them just as it was to most of the world and the large number of Royalists suggests it was not so widely accepted. Those who fought did so for a variety of reasons.
it was widely enough accepted that the colonists were not all hung, and that the loyalists were tarred and feathered. it was widely accepted enough that a new nation was born of it. again, you resort to insult instead of presenting an intelligent rebuttal.
wesw wrote:guin, I can t help but to believe that the Declaration has a much deeper meaning to you than solely the meaning attributed to it by sue u.
her flippant and derisory tone does not reflect any admiration at all, in my view.
I believe that I clearly expressed my views earlier today, in this thread, and tho I am able to shift my thinking as I learn, I doubt that anything will change my views on this subject. anything further would only be argumentative and repetitive.
You know absolutely nothing about Sue. Nothing.
And don't you dare tell me what I can and cannot post or argue. This ain't no court of law, and you ain't no judge.
“I ask no favor for my sex. All I ask of our brethren is that they take their feet off our necks.” ~ Ruth Bader Ginsburg, paraphrasing Sarah Moore Grimké
well I certainly did not know that she was that old......
and I don t recall telling you to do, or not do anything, you read that in yourself. I do think that my thought that any further discussion would be folly has been proved true by the pointlessness of the above posts. not much in the way of erudite debate there, just pitbull stuff.
oh, and I do know that sue has openly called for the repeal of the 2nd amendment, I wonder what her "buddies" would think of that....
the "tree of liberty" will need watering eventually, as it has throughout human history, without exception. power eventually corrupts govt, without exception. this is true in affairs of church and state.
I don t think that TJ would approve of taking away the Hose of the People, the 2nd amendment.
FWIW, when you get the little "Constitution" pamphlet from the U.S. Government Printing Office, it also includes the full text of the Declaration of Independence. The two must be read jointly in order to understand the form of Government that the Framers had in mind.
Consider: The First Amendment does not CONFER the right of "freedom of speech." What it says is that, "Congress shall make no law ...abridging the freedom of speech..." That is, the People ALREADY HAVE the right of freedom of speech and the government cannot take it away by law. Key point: Freedom of speech is one of the "unalienable rights" that include - but are not limited to - life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. The Ninth Amendment is also on point.
With respect to the Second Amendment, it must be read in light of the following statement in the DOI: "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 to these ends, it is the right of the people to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new government..."
How is this possible if the population may not "keep and bear arms"?
The Second Amendment is not only intended to provide for mobilization of the population in order to protect ourselves from outside aggression, but also from our own government, should it become destructive of our God-given rights.
