The issue of the Creator is not limited to the Judeo-Christian ethos. The belief in a Creator is almost universal; atheists are only excluded if the view is that the Creator is the/a Deity. The Name is immaterial; whether I use the term "manzana" or "apple", "naranja" or "orange", both terms still mean the same fruit, puns on the discussing of apples and oranges notwithstanding. Different religious traditions may have different beliefs as to the nature of deity; My understanding of deists is that they believe/d in the Judeo-Christian deity, though that deity is no longer directly involved in our lives, much as a watchmaker's presence is undoubted despite the fact that that watchmaker does not remain present to look after the workings of each watch he makes. Those who believe in multiple deities to my understanding still have a "ruler god", a Zeus or an Odin, for example, with their own beliefs as to the nature of creation. As to the people without a belief... I suppose it's a good thing that the Creator believes in them, yes?
I've never seen anything that actually stated that the God Deists believed in was, or for that matter was not, the God of the Jews. They simply believed in one God.
Whether or not God believes in non-believers is really only important if there is a God. Naturally this can only be believed, or not. It can not be proven or disproven. As a result it really doesn't matter to non-believers if what they believe to be the product of the imaginations of believers believes in them. That only matters to believers.
The owner of a company that has been incorporated can create, and thereby own, another business and not incorporate it. None the less, by incorporation he effectively gives up his Natural Property Rights over the incorporated company. Transferring ownership of the property is, after all, a part of incorporation. He sold it (or gave it away) it is no longer his.
Hospitals are incorporated entities. As such, they hold any Legal Rights afforded to corporations. If they continue to hold a Legal Right to infringe upon the individual's Derived Natural Right to effective self defense, it is because of loopholes in the law. I currently work for a company that continues to deny me that right due to Federal fiat. I consider it an Unconstitutional infringement, but if I want to keep the job I have to suffer that infringement.
Our? I would submit that this belief is yours. Perhaps shared by others, but certainly not universal. Like it or not there is an accepted distinction between Natural and Legal Rights. The Right to Life is a Natural Right obtained at birth. It's been that way since the first man. The Right to, for example, Counsel is a Legal Right that requires the existence of Government. Without Government such a right is not needed, and as such, does not exist. That fundamental point is part of what lead to the distinction between Natural and Legal Rights.
By the way, let's not lose sight of the fact that "Bill of Rights" is actually a nickname for the first ten Articles of Amendment to the Constitution. Most do not use the term "Right" at all. (Yes, I understand that Article Nine does, but it does not attempt to make a distinction between Natural and Legal.)
The Right to Keep and Bear Arms is derived from the Right to Life. Even the first man needed some form of defense in order to keep his Right to Life intact. The Right to Keep and Bear Arms is therefore a Derived Natural Right. Government infringes it wrongfully since Government may only alter Legal Rights.
The crux of the problem is what you addressed at the end of your post. WE have allowed our government to exceed its mandate, to overreach its bounds. It's easy to leave governance to those hired to do the job; our Founders were far more involved in the process. That accountability of which you speak works both directions.
You are welcome, and thank you as well.
Blessings,
Bill
While I agree with this, there is a problem. Those who have wrested control from us will not give it back freely. Voting doesn't help, since the Big Two currently simply buy elections. How many times have you heard the "lesser of two evils" argument while the speaker continues to toe the two party line? Contacting one's representative is of no help unless the representative happens to agree with the sentiment presented. Senator Lugar thanks me for my opinion while he votes against it most of the time. He is hardly alone. There's only one way to fix this, and it's illegal to even talk about (First Amendment notwithstanding).
At any rate, I believe I've given a solid argument for why the law this thread is about does not infringe the rights of the incorporated company's owner, and is therefore fully legal. Thank you for helping me refine my understanding.
