Conquer Club

Woodruff wrote:

Night Strike wrote:Where did the Declaration even imply that we were? All it said was that the Creator gave us our rights and that England was usurping those rights. If rights don't come from the Creator, then they come from man. If they come from man, they can change.

Those Jews in Nazi had a lot of rights, did they? You see, we have natural rights, certainly...but they are granted (and taken away) by governments, not God.

No, they're supposed to be protected by governments, but governments can't grant them. That's why the writers of the Declaration knew that the English government was not protecting their rights and had lost the consent of the governed. If there were not absolute rights, things like what the Nazis did can be justified because of moral relativism. Without an absolute basis for rights, the only rights are the ones the majority chooses to define.

PLAYER57832 wrote:No Nightstrike, those arguments only apply if you are religious, and then only some religions. We are a nation of many people with diverse ideas. I, of course, agree that we have a creator. But my personnal beliefs have no place in government.

YOU wish to replace that with your particular ideas. So have many throughout history. Thankfully, the majority has successfully kept us from becoming a theocracy.

Actually, those arguments apply for everyone who knows the history of our nation, regardless of their religion. You can't rewrite history (well you can, until facts start getting in the way). The beauty of this nation is that although the framers recognized the Christian foundation of our nation, they knew that having the federal government be religious would lead to the same oppression that they had under England. They recognized the Christian foundation and then set up a government that allowed people of all faiths to participate, which was a first in that time. They never intended for a person's religion to be checked at the door: they put in safeguards so that one person's religion didn't infringe on the religious practices of others. They knew that having a personal religious basis was necessary to govern properly, but they did not require a specific religion/denomination over another.

Night Strike wrote:

PLAYER57832 wrote:

Night Strike wrote:Looks like Obama wasn't actually making a mistake by omitting "Creator". You don't make that same mistake twice unless you are absolutely ignorant.

http://www.theblaze.com/stories/obama-omits-creator-from-inalienable-rights-again/

Last time I checked, we were NOT a theocracy. Give it a rest!

Where did the Declaration even imply that we were? All it said was that the Creator gave us our rights and that England was usurping those rights. If rights don't come from the Creator, then they come from man. If they come from man, they can change. And rights are supposed to be true regardless of man, as the writers of the Declaration realized. Believing that rights come from a Creator does not make our nation a theocracy. Theocracy's are when the state takes on the roll of religion and tells people exactly how to worship (Kings and Church of England, modern Iran, etc.). I will never let it rest when people like you have reshaped the founding of our nation to fit your bigger government worldview.

Rights do however change. At the time, it was their right to own human beings, and it was the rights of those slaves to deal with it. It was man who changed those rights, not any Creator.

There is no doubt you will never rest. Holding back the will of the people is a full time job. The comedy of it of course is you think youre actually the one arguing for whats right, and are indeed, the voice of pure evil, and have sold out on the true ideals you think you stand for, and argue for. At the end of my disgust, there is even a little pity for you.

Night Strike wrote:

Woodruff wrote:

Night Strike wrote:Where did the Declaration even imply that we were? All it said was that the Creator gave us our rights and that England was usurping those rights. If rights don't come from the Creator, then they come from man. If they come from man, they can change.

Those Jews in Nazi had a lot of rights, did they? You see, we have natural rights, certainly...but they are granted (and taken away) by governments, not God.

No, they're supposed to be protected by governments, but governments can't grant them.

I'm going to let you in on a little secret...if a government is capable of protecting rights, then that very same government is just exactly as capable of taking away those rights.

Night Strike wrote:That's why the writers of the Declaration knew that the English government was not protecting their rights and had lost the consent of the governed. If there were not absolute rights, things like what the Nazis did can be justified because of moral relativism. Without an absolute basis for rights, the only rights are the ones the majority chooses to define.

Wait, wait, wait...are you actually saying that since what the Nazis did can't be justified, then it didn't happen? Because that really appears to be what you're saying. And I'd really like to think that's not what you're saying.

The fact of the matter IS that the only rights are the ones that the majority chooses to define. Nazi Germany, modern-day China, WWII-era Russia, modern-day Afghanistan...they happened (and are still happening), Night Strike. Those governments took away those peoples' rights. There is no getting around that fact.

Woodruff, you're making my point. Government took away rights because they failed to do their jobs as protectors of rights. If government's can take away rights as easily as all of those examples, what makes anyone think that government can be entrusted to grant rights? If a right is granted by the government and can be taken away by that government just as easily, then how is it a right? As for where you think I claimed those events never happened, I have no clue where you got that impression. I'm saying that without an absolute moral standard, the Nazis could be justified in their actions: it's the ultimate conclusion of moral relativism and state-granted rights. If rights came from a Creator, then regardless of a government's protection, individuals hold those rights. If citizens feel their government is not protecting those rights, then they also have the right to replace that government. However, if governments can define what is a right and what is not, then we have no repercussion when government does things we do not like. We would truly be at the whim of the majority (or oligarchy, depending on the government).

AAFitz wrote:Rights do however change. At the time, it was their right to own human beings, and it was the rights of those slaves to deal with it. It was man who changed those rights, not any Creator.

The endowed rights we were given by the Creator never change. The way people carry out those rights, both correctly and improperly, is what changes over time. A human has always been a human even though white people thought blacks were property. People are fallible, which is why you can't trust them as the granter of rights.

Night Strike wrote:Woodruff, you're making my point. Government took away rights because they failed to do their jobs as protectors of rights. If government's can take away rights as easily as all of those examples, what makes anyone think that government can be entrusted to grant rights?

I'm NOT making your point in any way, shape or form. Your point is that rights are somehow granted by a Supreme Being, which is a concept that I personally find silly. Rights are not "granted", rights are fought for, blood is spilled for them. THAT is how rights are gained. Rights come from our understanding of the proper way to treat other human beings, which is precisely why our rights have evolved from what they were just 200 years ago to what they are today. Did God get confused and change what he was granting us? No...we just got smarter about things.

Night Strike wrote:If a right is granted by the government and can be taken away by that government just as easily, then how is it a right?

Because rights are DEFINED by the government. Your rights in the United States are far different from your rights in Afghanistan.

Night Strike wrote:As for where you think I claimed those events never happened, I have no clue where you got that impression. I'm saying that without an absolute moral standard, the Nazis could be justified in their actions: it's the ultimate conclusion of moral relativism and state-granted rights.

Moral relativism applies anyway, as slavery in our own country (under that Creator clause you're referring to) quite clearly shows. Your Creator clause didn't help stop the moral relativism in any way.

Night Strike wrote:If rights came from a Creator, then regardless of a government's protection, individuals hold those rights.

If you're male. And white. And a property owner.

Night Strike wrote:However, if governments can define what is a right and what is not, then we have no repercussion when government does things we do not like. We would truly be at the whim of the majority (or oligarchy, depending on the government).

There is no "if" about it. This is fact. We happen to be extremely fortunate to live in a nation whose laws are designed to protect our rights, but the fact is that our rights are at the whim of the government (fortunately not the majority...yet).

Night Strike wrote:

AAFitz wrote:Rights do however change. At the time, it was their right to own human beings, and it was the rights of those slaves to deal with it. It was man who changed those rights, not any Creator.

The endowed rights we were given by the Creator never change.

What if there is no Creator, Night Strike?

Nightstrike, the point is that your attempts to look to a Creator are actually MORE flimsy, not supportive of our government. Because the definition of that Creator, what he/she wants, etc differs. That is why government must be nuetral.

AND it is why all this argument about Obama being somehow evil or just not Christian, etc., is just dangerous. Most who know Obama say he is a faithful man. But, the FACTS are it really doesn't matter. He is not our Pastor, he is our president.

stahrgazer wrote:

Phatscotty wrote:I assume he is going to ask America for their votes in 2012. We should know who we are voting for. Is he the strong Christian he was last week, or just forgetful about the one line in the Declaration that EVERY American knows?

Actually, not saying "creator" could be a sign of his Christianity. I've seldom heard Christians pray to "my creator,".. usually it's "my Lord," or, as Christ would have it, "our Father."

Nope, not a, "my Creator," prayer anywhere that I can find.

Gosh, would that make those who CLAIM to be Christian, NOT Christian, because they're saying "creator" instead of Jesus, Lord, God, or Father?

Well, it says Creator in the document that he was quoting...he left it out. On purpose

Barak Obama is against EVERYTHING America was founded on. He is not wasting one single opportunity to telegraph it either. Hey, I give him respect. I only wish a president would take on of my issues as seriously as Obama takes anti-christian, anti-American views.

Seriously, I would not complain about anything

Phatscotty wrote:Well, it says Creator in the document that he was quoting...he left it out. On purpose

Even if he did, SO WHAT?

Phatscotty wrote:Barak Obama is against EVERYTHING America was founded on. He is not wasting one single opportunity to telegraph it either. Hey, I give him respect. I only wish a president would take on of my issues as seriously as Obama takes anti-christian, anti-American views.

Seriously, you make it clear you know nothing of either Christianity OR being a true American.

PLAYER57832 wrote:

Phatscotty wrote:Well, it says Creator in the document that he was quoting...he left it out. On purpose

Even if he did, SO WHAT?

Phatscotty wrote:Barak Obama is against EVERYTHING America was founded on. He is not wasting one single opportunity to telegraph it either. Hey, I give him respect. I only wish a president would take on of my issues as seriously as Obama takes anti-christian, anti-American views.

Seriously, you make it clear you know nothing of either Christianity OR being a true American.

From you Player, that is the highest compliment I have ever received. Thank you

Phatscotty wrote:

stahrgazer wrote:

Phatscotty wrote:I assume he is going to ask America for their votes in 2012. We should know who we are voting for. Is he the strong Christian he was last week, or just forgetful about the one line in the Declaration that EVERY American knows?

Actually, not saying "creator" could be a sign of his Christianity. I've seldom heard Christians pray to "my creator,".. usually it's "my Lord," or, as Christ would have it, "our Father."

Nope, not a, "my Creator," prayer anywhere that I can find.

Gosh, would that make those who CLAIM to be Christian, NOT Christian, because they're saying "creator" instead of Jesus, Lord, God, or Father?

Well, it says Creator in the document that he was quoting...he left it out. On purpose

Barak Obama is against EVERYTHING America was founded on. He is not wasting one single opportunity to telegraph it either. Hey, I give him respect. I only wish a president would take on of my issues as seriously as Obama takes anti-christian, anti-American views.

Seriously, I would not complain about anything

So how deep is the deep end, Scotty?

Phatscotty wrote:Barak Obama is against EVERYTHING America was founded on. He is not wasting one single opportunity to telegraph it either. Hey, I give him respect. I only wish a president would take on of my issues as seriously as Obama takes anti-christian, anti-American views.

So he says that he believes in 90% of the content of that sentence, and since he didn't comment on the other 10%, you conclude that he is against everything America is founded on?

Metsfanmax wrote:

Phatscotty wrote:Barak Obama is against EVERYTHING America was founded on. He is not wasting one single opportunity to telegraph it either. Hey, I give him respect. I only wish a president would take on of my issues as seriously as Obama takes anti-christian, anti-American views.

So he says that he believes in 90% of the content of that sentence, and since he didn't comment on the other 10%, you conclude that he is against everything America is founded on?

You've heard of the "new math", right? This is "Republican math".

Woodruff wrote:

Metsfanmax wrote:

Phatscotty wrote:Barak Obama is against EVERYTHING America was founded on. He is not wasting one single opportunity to telegraph it either. Hey, I give him respect. I only wish a president would take on of my issues as seriously as Obama takes anti-christian, anti-American views.

So he says that he believes in 90% of the content of that sentence, and since he didn't comment on the other 10%, you conclude that he is against everything America is founded on?

You've heard of the "new math", right? This is "Republican math".

It sounds to me like they were talking about Barrack Obama's math. Try to keep up.

Scotty - I might not be sure if anything should be mentioned about freemasonry, but it might at least be able to help us get at a heart and soul of what the United States really is. How many 18th century US politicians can you name who were not freemasons? What if Luke 4:6 refers to a power of the devil that the US isn't free from and how surprised would you be to discover the US has a two party system that's the result of rebels trying to divide and conquer? Throw some immoral crap on each side and give the public two options? What if the US is actually modern day Babylon? Known for towers and money and a tongue that she has helped spread around the globe and much more and just so happened to take control of ancient Babel in the last ten years from across the globe?

Lionz wrote:How many 18th century US politicians can you name who were not freemasons?

A ton, actually. But then again, I never guess ... I LOOK IT UP! (From an old library button.)

Freemasons among the U.S. Founding Fathers

Consider the signers of the Declaration of Independence: 9 of the 56 aigners were Masons so from that list ...

John Adams
Samuel Adams
Josiah Bartlett
Carter Braxton
Charles Carroll of Carrollton
Samuel Chase
Abraham Clark
George Clymer
William Floyd
Elbridge Gerry
Button Gwinnett
Lyman Hall
Benjamin Harrison
John Hart
Thomas Heyward, Jr.
Stephen Hopkins
Francis Hopkinson
Samuel Huntington
Francis Lightfoot Lee
Richard Henry Lee
Francis Lewis
Philip Livingston
Thomas Lynch, Jr.
Arthur Middleton
Lewis Morris
etc.

What if we just throw these conspiracy theories aside. While there is a posibility that Free Masonry had an influence on some of the founding fathers, so is the posiblity that the Iriquois Confederacy had an influence on some of the founding fathers. Unfortunately, being dead, you can't ask them.

tzor wrote: Unfortunately, being dead, you can't ask them.

And, being dead, they no longer have any say in the matter. We, the living are allowed to change and make our own judgements based upon today's standards.

The Masonic foundation is beyond argument, but yes the mention of it has been missing. I think the term "Creator" was chosen to represent god in a universal way. The Masons accepted Indians who did not believe in Christianity or gad neccesarily, but one in particular believed in "the great architect" and that is all that is required to be a Mason...the belief in a higher power. It does not need a name.

Probably the first true example of religious diversity, which still influences and shapes America today

ViperOverLord wrote:

Woodruff wrote:

Metsfanmax wrote:

Phatscotty wrote:Barak Obama is against EVERYTHING America was founded on. He is not wasting one single opportunity to telegraph it either. Hey, I give him respect. I only wish a president would take on of my issues as seriously as Obama takes anti-christian, anti-American views.

So he says that he believes in 90% of the content of that sentence, and since he didn't comment on the other 10%, you conclude that he is against everything America is founded on?

You've heard of the "new math", right? This is "Republican math".

It sounds to me like they were talking about Barrack Obama's math. Try to keep up.

Your reading incomprehension has struck again, I am afraid.

Woodruff wrote:

ViperOverLord wrote:

Woodruff wrote:

Metsfanmax wrote:

Phatscotty wrote:Barak Obama is against EVERYTHING America was founded on. He is not wasting one single opportunity to telegraph it either. Hey, I give him respect. I only wish a president would take on of my issues as seriously as Obama takes anti-christian, anti-American views.

So he says that he believes in 90% of the content of that sentence, and since he didn't comment on the other 10%, you conclude that he is against everything America is founded on?

You've heard of the "new math", right? This is "Republican math".

It sounds to me like they were talking about Barrack Obama's math. Try to keep up.

Your reading incomprehension has struck again, I am afraid.

Metsfan misses the point. his reply is silly. there is simply no comment from me...

Phatscotty wrote:
Metsfan misses the point. his reply is silly. there is simply no comment from me...

Your point is understood.. however, your point has absolutely nothing to do with the true constitution. Nor does it have much to do with what most of the founding fathers wrote or said.

Phatscotty wrote:The Masonic foundation is beyond argument, but yes the mention of it has been missing. I think the term "Creator" was chosen to represent god in a universal way. The Masons accepted Indians who did not believe in Christianity or gad neccesarily, but one in particular believed in "the great architect" and that is all that is required to be a Mason...the belief in a higher power. It does not need a name.

Probably the first true example of religious diversity, which still influences and shapes America today

Yes, but you and many like you STILL seem to want to turn the clock back to the days when it was "be [what we consider] Christian or DIE", as evidence by your repeated assertions that Obama is not Christian and therefore is .. evil.

A. The man says he is Christian. The rest is up to God.

B. Whether he is or is not Christian DOES NOT MATTER. Whether he believes in a Creator or does not DOES NOT MATTER. Whether his ommission of "creator" was intentional.. either reflective of his beliefs OR in response to suggestions he be more inclusive (or whatever) DOES NOT MATTER.

IT DOES NOT MATTER BECAUSE WE ARE NOT A THEOCRACY.

PLAYER57832 wrote:

tzor wrote: Unfortunately, being dead, you can't ask them.

And, being dead, they no longer have any say in the matter. We, the living are allowed to change and make our own judgements based upon today's standards.

I suppose that we true. It is indeed an inalienable right of all people to f*ck up. (Indeed this is the cornerstone of free will.) That doesn't mean we can't lament it. I recall that famous commerical of a proud native American looking at a trash strewn road and crying. Yes, the generations of tomorrow may well f*ck everything up. But until then, you will f*ck up this nation ...

over my dead body!

tzor wrote:

PLAYER57832 wrote:

tzor wrote: Unfortunately, being dead, you can't ask them.

And, being dead, they no longer have any say in the matter. We, the living are allowed to change and make our own judgements based upon today's standards.

I suppose that we true. It is indeed an inalienable right of all people to f*ck up. (Indeed this is the cornerstone of free will.) That doesn't mean we can't lament it. I recall that famous commerical of a proud native American looking at a trash strewn road and crying. Yes, the generations of tomorrow may well f*ck everything up. But until then, you will f*ck up this nation ...

over my dead body!

I see, so you want to return to the days when slavery was legal, anyonly thoseowning property could vote?

GOOD TO KNOW!

Me... I think the problems like that one in the ad you touted are the REAL issue.. and those somehow are absent from that wonderful Republican platform, Tea Party rhetoric, and complaints in this thread. The premise here is that since Obama omitted "creator" from his speech, he is basically satan intent on destroying America

PLAYER57832 wrote:

tzor wrote:

PLAYER57832 wrote:

tzor wrote: Unfortunately, being dead, you can't ask them.

And, being dead, they no longer have any say in the matter. We, the living are allowed to change and make our own judgements based upon today's standards.

I suppose that we true. It is indeed an inalienable right of all people to f*ck up. (Indeed this is the cornerstone of free will.) That doesn't mean we can't lament it. I recall that famous commerical of a proud native American looking at a trash strewn road and crying. Yes, the generations of tomorrow may well f*ck everything up. But until then, you will f*ck up this nation ...

over my dead body!

I see, so you want to return to the days when slavery was legal, anyonly thoseowning property could vote?

GOOD TO KNOW!

Me... I think the problems like that one in the ad you touted are the REAL issue.. and those somehow are absent from that wonderful Republican platform, Tea Party rhetoric, and complaints in this thread. The premise here is that since Obama omitted "creator" from his speech, he is basically satan intent on destroying America

You know your side has lost the argument when you have to claim the other side wants slavery. Since when does limiting the government make slavery legal? I believe the outlawing of slavery is actually written into the Constitution, and that amendment is not one that people are fighting to repeal. Please enter the real debate.

Night Strike wrote:

PLAYER57832 wrote:

tzor wrote:

PLAYER57832 wrote:

tzor wrote: Unfortunately, being dead, you can't ask them.

And, being dead, they no longer have any say in the matter. We, the living are allowed to change and make our own judgements based upon today's standards.

I suppose that we true. It is indeed an inalienable right of all people to f*ck up. (Indeed this is the cornerstone of free will.) That doesn't mean we can't lament it. I recall that famous commerical of a proud native American looking at a trash strewn road and crying. Yes, the generations of tomorrow may well f*ck everything up. But until then, you will f*ck up this nation ...

over my dead body!

I see, so you want to return to the days when slavery was legal, anyonly thoseowning property could vote?

GOOD TO KNOW!

Me... I think the problems like that one in the ad you touted are the REAL issue.. and those somehow are absent from that wonderful Republican platform, Tea Party rhetoric, and complaints in this thread. The premise here is that since Obama omitted "creator" from his speech, he is basically satan intent on destroying America

You know your side has lost the argument when you have to claim the other side wants slavery. Since when does limiting the government make slavery legal? I believe the outlawing of slavery is actually written into the Constitution, and that amendment is not one that people are fighting to repeal. Please enter the real debate.

WOOSH.... (point going past Nightstrike's head there).

You cannot claim we are to look to the founding father's wishes for the constitution for some things, but pretend ignorance on others. Yes, the constitution WAS changed, as was how various things are interpreted and used throughout our history. That is the whole point!

.. and, just so there is no confusion, I do believe that tzor (and you, for that matter) are very much against slavery.