Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Should God be replaced? -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Greg or e who wrote (17320)	4/30/2004 6:48:24 AM
From: Solon	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 28931

"Righto I did not say it was proof so there goes your premise." Crap! You clearly put it in the circle of your circular "reasoning"! "I and all people have an innate sense of right and wrong, That common knowledge stems from the fact that as created sentient beings we reflect certain attributes of our Creator"..."God's existence can clearly be seen in the creation and conscience as well as common experience tells us what God's standards and character are like" "God's existence can clearly be seen in the creation and conscience" refers to your "innate sense of right and wrong". "I would like you to show me why you would impose your values on a sovereign nation that decided to kill a certain portion of their population for whatever reason they decided" Well, now you are off on another tangent--but fine: It was not I who imposed values. However, I agree with using force against sovereign nations under certain circumstances. "What the State grants the State can take away. What's your objection to the Nazi State doing just that?" I value individual rights and freedoms and I oppose religious and political tyranny. "Did I say Constitution? I was talking about the "Declaration of Independence" being Canadian I may have used the wrong title" Don't worry about it. It doesn't matter what document one does or does not find some "God" mentioned on. They are all written by humans to advance human agendas. "Therefore rights cannot be unalienable, they are just the opinion of those people at that time and have no authority over us." Well, that is true. But if they speak to fundamental human needs we may perhaps be persuaded to fight to hold and keep them. I guess I need to clarify this matter or it will serve you for countless hiding spots in the Mouse Runs to come. Firstly, the Declaration was about Revolution against the Authority of the King. In order to declare they had the RIGHT to liberty and freedom they had to cite a “higher” authority—one that was intangible and one that could not be deposed by either assassination or overthrow. Jefferson based his ideas on the philosophy of Locke--people have Natural Rights grounded in Natural Law…and demanded by Human Nature. The essential nature of human beings is to reason, and reason leads to certain assumptions as to what is good and what is best. Natural Law may simply reference nature, or it may include whatever may inform nature, if anything. Inserting “creator” into the Declaration was therefore a brilliant move. It prevents religions from pursuing their urge to power. It also allows a basis for all people to fight against oppression and tyranny. Now why isn’t God in the Constitution? For a very simple reason: The Constitution is about rules. The “Creator” has no rules to give. He is a proxy for the Will and Freedom of intelligent and cultivated people. All rules come from people; and rules which favour one religious mythology over another can never promote fundamental justice or human rights. It is for this reason that Jefferson and company risked their lives. And it is for this reason that the Constitutional regulations are free of religious dogma. How would one create an irrational Constitution? Start with the Jewish prohibition against pork and continue with a lecture on sacred cows. Follow it up with 10,000 different “Christian” visions and views. One could then invite contributions from the Ojibwa on the sacred circle guidelines for jurisprudence. And on and on... So all those peculiarities which prompted the Revolution in the first place (religious intolerance, tyranny, and authority) could then be enshrined as permanent ideological companions alongside freedom and equality?! I don’t think so! And neither did Jefferson, et al! So it does no harm to mention “Creator” in the Declaration. This presumes a higher authority than the King or Priest, and it neither favors nor alienates any of the thousands of religious sects and groups. But it is ONLY a presumption and a contrivance. As I said: it was brilliant and it was a pragmatic gem. But Jefferson cannot create Yahweh, Jesus, or the Holy Ghost by writing “Creator” in the Declaration, no more than can you…and no more than can I create Thor or Zeus. It would have been the last thing on Jefferson’s mind to immortalize a particular myth. So two things are clear: 1). “Creator” is in the Declaration. It is NOT in the Constitution. You can accept my explanation for that, or you can make up one of your own. It matters not to me. 2). What you cannot do is pretend that inserting Thor, Ra, Allah, Yahweh, or “Creator” on a piece of paper proves the existence of such a Being. I agree with “Creator” being inserted in the Declaration for several reasons: Firstly, it is not necessarily false that there exists some higher power—more advanced and (hopefully) more beneficent than humankind. A lack of evidence does not falsify possibility. Secondly, it appeals to the human urge to transcendentalism while avoiding the ugly and ridiculous dogmas that have been the scourge of human existence. Thus it places the principles most essential to the survival of humanity (individual rights and freedoms within a secular Constitution) apart from the arbitrary reach and caprice of King and Priest--while at the same time grounding these essential freedoms in the emotion as well as in the intellect. Thus the most fundamental requirements for freedom and social harmony are separated from all association with religious DOCTRINE while at the same time including the religious urge as a motive for freedom and as an appeal for resistance of tyranny. The Bill of Rights are not Absolute values, as in being immanent in the universe. However, they do accord very well with human nature—at least, for now. In a thousand years? Who knows? But certainly these values are fundamental, and they delight both the reason and the heart! I have mentioned previously that the best moral principles flow from the appreciation of both. Absolutely brilliant of Jefferson and company to underscore them in the Declaration with "Creator"! When one goes out on the limb of Revolution and faces execution for treason, one must muster the emotion as well as the intellect...and one must place their authority for action beyond the reach of the hangman's noose! And you cannot hang the amorphous "Creator". You cannot even negotiate with it...