If your rights came from above, would they not be supernatural rights? And if natural rights flow from the god of the Bible, what of the rights of humans before the bible was written? Man predates the Bible.
I provide you with a link to their actual words and writings, with sources. You provide me with an unsourced op-ed piece.
Thanks for helping.
Thinking about it further, what else would I expect from you, except assertions without evidence? Silly me.
I know you and many more really, really, want to believe the FF's were not Christians or non-any-other-religion. I guess it's kind of like those that fawn all over movie stars and atheletes when they come out as pro-2A--it lends credibility to their own beliefs. You can still believe it if you want to but you'd be wrong.
I don't know you, GFGT, and I don't agree with your views, but I respect your opinion. And you seem to be open to a rational discussion on this topic.
I am perfectly willing to acknowledge that the majority of the FFs were indeed traditional Christians. Just as I think you would agree that there were a non-zero number who were not. My larger issue with your post is that it ignores (or at least minimizes) the fact that the FFs went through a good deal of effort to ratify a Constitution that wasn't so strongly worded, regardless of their personal beliefs.
Intrigued by Kutnupe's baseless falsifications, I went to my Lexis account and downloaded, “Well Regulated: The Early American Origins of Gun Control,” Fordham Law Review 73 (2004), 487-528 Cornell, Saul with Nathan DeDino. Not surprisingly, p. 505 does not say anything about the militia act of 1792 requiring the registering or cataloging of anyone's guns. Even the veteran anti-gunner Cornell wasn't about to make this ridiculous, and easily refuted, claim. It seems to have been made up out of whole cloth. By the way, this edition of the Fordham Law Review was the result of a notorious "2nd Amendment" symposium funded by the radically anti-gun Joyce Foundation and from which all those whose previous scholarship was deemed "pro-gun" were excluded. Even though this volume of anti-gun rant doesn't even support the extreme claims of Kutnupe, his choice of sources is quite telling. Is this the best hatchet job the Democratic Underground could do?
See, Of Arms and the Law: Saul Cornell responds re: Joyce Fdn buying law reviews
If your rights came from above, would they not be supernatural rights? And if natural rights flow from the god of the Bible, what of the rights of humans before the bible was written? Man predates the Bible.
And your mention of the 2 groups (Christians vs Catholics) who supposedly worship the same god, yet are at odds with each other, clearly illustrates why public policy based on supernatural criteria is doomed to failure in a society populated with people from many different backgrounds.
I never said that ALL of the founding fathers were not Christians, nor did I say that there was no influence from Christianity. To say that would be to ignore history. But it is a fact that this nation was NOT founded on Christianity, as so many like to assert. Many were very skeptical of religion and religious institutions. That is crystal clear.
And for the record, although I am agnostic myself, I don't consider religions people to be stupid. I simply disagree that so many have found the answers to the mysteries of the universe based on nothing but what boils down to tradition and legend, without evidence. There are certainly some brilliant people who are believers. One would have to admit, though, that they do not apply the same logic and reason to that particular part of their life that they do to other parts of their life.
First bold quote - I agree it wasn't founded on Christianity as a religion, but I would say it was very much influenced by Christian principles, including moral principles which in today's society, people are doing everything they can to ignore.
Second bold quote - I completely disagree. The most illogical and unreasonable position put forth by man is that nobody times nothing equals everything. It requires the recipient to place their faith in something so absurd, that it defies all scientific reasoning and laws. And in a cruel paradox, it is scientists who demand your faith in that which they know themselves to be an impossibility.
It takes a great deal more faith for someone to believe everything comes from nothing than to believe in a creator God.
That's because they don't. Many of the founding fathers were Deists.
First bold quote - I agree it wasn't founded on Christianity as a religion, but I would say it was very much influenced by Christian principles, including moral principles which in today's society, people are doing everything they can to ignore.
Second bold quote - I completely disagree. The most illogical and unreasonable position put forth by man is that nobody times nothing equals everything. It requires the recipient to place their faith in something so absurd, that it defies all scientific reasoning and laws. And in a cruel paradox, it is scientists who demand your faith in that which they know themselves to be an impossibility.
It takes a great deal more faith for someone to believe everything comes from nothing than to believe in a creator God.
First bold quote - I agree it wasn't founded on Christianity as a religion, but I would say it was very much influenced by Christian principles, including moral principles which in today's society, people are doing everything they can to ignore.
Second bold quote - I completely disagree. The most illogical and unreasonable position put forth by man is that nobody times nothing equals everything. It requires the recipient to place their faith in something so absurd, that it defies all scientific reasoning and laws. And in a cruel paradox, it is scientists who demand your faith in that which they know themselves to be an impossibility.
It takes a great deal more faith for someone to believe everything comes from nothing than to believe in a creator God.
The OP ignores completely the collected works of Thomas Paine, most notably The Rights of Man.
Did you just CHANGE the font, by italicizing, of my post in an attempt to indicate that the part that I quoted from the Fordham Review made mention of the the Militia Act???
And then you make an accusation of falsification? Holy Moly!
I've come into contact with some downright dishonorable people in my life, and that lil stunt you just pulled, puts you right there with them.
Post #8, first paragraph isn't italicized, second paragraph is due to taking directly from a source (Fordham). That post was last edited 12 hours ago.
Post #73, within my quote CarmelHP has CHANGED the original, and italicized BOTH of the first 2 paragraphs, which would indicate that both are directly taken from the Fordham source (which is false). He then accuses someone of baseless falsifications. That post is from an hour ago (and has not YET been edited).
Wow, I'm actually pretty disappointed that even you would stoop so low.
That gut feeling is probably you needing to eat something.
Yes, the 3/5 Crompromise was the begining of the end of slavery, I never addressed that notion, but that meant "what" for the millions of slaves and freedmen who had to endure being counted as 3/5 of a person for the next 80 some-odd years?
The same persons that were "counted" for representation but lacked the abilty to be "represented"? And then when you consider that Freedmen, ie non-slaves, were also counted under the compromise, but were taxed, then we end up with the whole revolutionary cry of "No Taxation without Representation." Or at least non-equal representation.
Why would you count a person for representation who couldn't vote?
Nice try. Nothing got changed. Is this how you always conduct yourself? Do you have a drop piece or a little bag of something to plant on those you can't come up with anything on? This is unremarkable given your past. Did you happen to notice, oh brilliant one, that the quote function italicizes quotes? Are you that lamebrained, really? Are you now claiming that you didn't make the charge that the Militia Act of 1792 DIDN'T require registration when you clearly did? You are quite the piece of work. Any other anti-gun propaganda you want to peddle and then deny?
The OP ignores completely the collected works of Thomas Paine, most notably The Rights of Man.