Quote:
Originally Posted by Barnard17
One of god's children? Have you been reading the same copy of the constitution that I have? The first amendment makes no mention of God. In fact the founding documents make pointed little reference to any deity let alone a specific one.
|
you're right, our founding documents do make very few references to a specific god. i'm sure we can agree, though, the references that
are made are moderately important---like the one that says "all men...are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights." this was of course, the declaration of independence, which is the basest of american foundational documents. it was the ultimate intention of the founders in composing the bill of rights to expound upon this ideal, and to establish a country whereby that ideal would be respected. how do i know the intentions of the founders? because they composed dozens of documents and gave dozens of speeches debating these ideas. madison, in particular, specifically alludes to john locke's philosophy of the state of nature and natural rights in his address
presenting the bill of rights to the delegates of the constitutional convention: "It may be said, in some instances they do no more than state the perfect equality of mankind; this to be sure is an absolute truth..."
Quote:
|
More so, the claim of "natural rights" is heavily debatable. While the intention may have been to state what the founding fathers believed to be inherent to all human beings; it remains that any enforcement of the document must go through legal processes. Id est, regardless of the rhetoric you surround the bill of rights with they are still functionally nothing other than laws that the Government agrees to abide by, which is why there are still provisions for Government to amend these "natural rights".
|
it wasn't debatable to the men who founded the united states, and since that is the country in question i regret that your opinion on the matter doesn't weigh much. the point is, the founders of this country felt that certain rights were granted to humanity by God, and that no government can infringe upon them. and the fact of the matter is, as free-thinking, free individuals we
do have natural rights (feel free to read kant's dissertation proving this through the use of--your favorite--reason!). the first amendment is not enforced through legal means, it isn't enforced at all because there is nothing to enforce. what the government enforces are laws that prohibit one person from violating the natural rights of another. the rights themselves just are. and there is, ostensibly, no provision for altering the first amendment, or any contained in the bill of rights. madison made clear that the first amendment, above all, was inviolable.
Quote:
|
Non sequitur based on regress arguments. I do not accept your claim to the distinction of what is and is not a natural right. I do not accept your claim to a substantive existence of natural rights. I do not accept your claim that this is a matter of a right to not be offended. The act of burning the Koran is a flagrant incitement to encourage feelings of hatred and a mentality of action against Muslims. It is Islamophobic persecution under the reasoning and cognitive function with which the act is being carried out. Rev Jones is breaking the rights of Muslims to their own freedom of religion using a warped perception of the importance of his own freedom of expression.
|
it doesn't matter if you agree with me or not
chief. i have no power to speak of. but the men who established this country shared my beliefs, and DID have power, and DID establish a country that recognizes natural rights and recognizes expression as one of them. and the bold is an absolutely absurd statement. how is he breaking their right to freedom of religion? they are just as free to believe as they believe and practice as they practice whether he and the 4 other members of his church burn korans or not. what sort of power are you investing in this man?
it surprises me that so many of you are having trouble grasping the concept of total freedom of expression.