It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

God, the Constitution, and our Rights

page: 1
8
<<   2 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jan, 31 2015 @ 01:25 AM
link   
The Constitution, and Bill of Rights, at its foundation, is our inalienably rights, which are given by God. The Natural law, and Common law, again at its core foundation, are God given rights, and the right of ownership, (or property rights). This is all based on the presupposition of the existence of God, (or Creator). So the movement to get God out of the Constitution, would open the door to man's law, which could legislate by decision, our inalienable rights into non existence. I do not think (We The People) want that to happen.
What do you think? Do you want TPTB to have that open door, to be placed under man's law. I know it seems like we are under that right now. The reason we feel that way is, we don't have the knowledge to defend our rights. If you want to know what you can do to get involved, and learn how to defend your rights check out

www.nationallibertyalliance.org...

So I'm asking do we really want God out of the Constitution!!!!
edit on 31-1-2015 by Michaelfunction because: (no reason given)




posted on Jan, 31 2015 @ 04:06 AM
link   
a reply to: Michaelfunction

I think that we need to stop using some mythical being as a crutch. So yes references to "god" need to be removed from our laws.



posted on Jan, 31 2015 @ 04:24 AM
link   
I would hope that you might take the time to study the prophetic opinions of our Forefathers. Maybe you have, and that is your opinion, but it definitely is not mine!!! I'm asking do you want this removed from the Constitution and Bill of Rights? a reply to: AprilFooseball


edit on 31-1-2015 by Michaelfunction because: (no reason given)

edit on 31-1-2015 by Michaelfunction because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 31 2015 @ 04:54 AM
link   

originally posted by: AprilFooseball
a reply to: Michaelfunction

I think that we need to stop using some mythical being as a crutch.


When did anyone disprove the existence of God? I am fairly certain that agnostics hold the only logical position.



posted on Jan, 31 2015 @ 07:23 AM
link   
Which God? The Christian God? The Hebrew God? Allah? Zeus? What if there is no God?

I thought we were supposed to have religious freedom in this country? I thought everyone was free to worship whatever God they want, or no God at all?

If we are a nation of religious freedom, then our government should not represent any particular god. Yes, we should take God out of the constitution. Unalienable rights just means rights that you are born with. There doesn't have to be a god involved in that.



posted on Jan, 31 2015 @ 09:04 AM
link   
I thought it was a Creator they mention. If we truly exist, and all things in the world and universe exist, and these things came from an original source, then that source must be this creator they talk about. Whether that is a being, a force, an accident, whatever, this source is the Creator and I would feel fine if it were left at that as long as we can ascribe rights to our existence that came from this source at our birth. Personally I don't care what you call this Creator, but that is an accurate word in my opinion.

If we leave our rights in the hands of a human, or group of humans, they will be abused and misused. Humans have proven to be unreliable when they have been trusted to preserve our rights. So, God?, I prefer the creator of all things, the source of sources, really this is all just semantics and word play.

Of course, if humans are the source of our rights as humans, then I have as much rights as the next human anyway, unless you believe some have authority over others. That authority of human over human can only come from superior force, so the guy with bare hands must submit to the might of the guy with a gun or an army of followers, etc. Might makes right in a case like this and not what I believe regardless of what we call the creator of all things.

Bottom line is I believe in human equality regardless of where things came from. Once you ascribe mores rights to some over others, for reasons like intelligence or physical attributes, you have a Nazi-like eugenics type of thing that could justify wiping out whole populations or enslaving women, children, and who ever doesn't seem fit enough to have any rights at all.
edit on 31-1-2015 by MichiganSwampBuck because: Added extra comments



posted on Jan, 31 2015 @ 09:17 AM
link   

originally posted by: Michaelfunction
So I'm asking do we really want God out of the Constitution!!!!


God is not mentioned in the Constitution or amendments...



God

It has often been seen on the Internet that to find God in the Constitution, all one has to do is read it, and see how often the Framers used the words "God," or "Creator," "Jesus," or "Lord." Except for one notable instance, however, none of these words ever appears in the Constitution, neither the original nor in any of the Amendments.


Things that are NOT in the Constitution



posted on Jan, 31 2015 @ 09:27 AM
link   

originally posted by: Michaelfunction
The Constitution, and Bill of Rights, at its foundation, is our inalienably rights, which are given by God. The Natural law, and Common law, again at its core foundation, are God given rights, and the right of ownership, (or property rights). This is all based on the presupposition of the existence of God, (or Creator). So the movement to get God out of the Constitution, would open the door to man's law, which could legislate by decision, our inalienable rights into non existence.... (snip)

So I'm asking do we really want God out of the Constitution!!!!


Bless your heart for posting this. Natural Law and its attendant inalienable rights is a national discussion that needs to be had. In talking to people, I'm amazed (and appalled) at how many people have never heard of Natural Law/Natural Rights and its integral place in our founding... and I think that you're correct that there is a coordinated effort to undermine our natural inalienable rights with civil rights -- given by man and easily taken by man. Civil rights are a piss poor substitution for inalienable rights.

But the decision of our founding fathers to use "Creator" and not "God," was a wise choice based on experience with tyrannical religious institutions. The Inquisition and Burning Times were not ancient history to them. So, in keeping with our natural inalienable right to worship according to our conscience, "Creator" includes God, Allah, Yahweh, even Mother Nature, encompassing all and excluding none.

This is an important distinction, because there are those who confuse Natural Law with church law, and try to impose their religious dogma in that light. No matter how good their intentions, it only discredits and undermines our natural rights, and furthers the divide-and-conquer game the PTB play against us.

Homosexuality is the first example that comes to mind, which I have seen many Christians condemn based on their misunderstanding of Natural Law. To be more specific, natural law covers that which comes from nature as opposed to that which comes from man. Man does not and never did make homosexuals. Homosexuality is not the norm, much like people who are left-handed, but it is natural... it came from nature. Homosexuality was not created in a laboratory or a manufacturing plant or even by an act of congress. Therefore, it is a protected right.

In this light, I am more appreciative and grateful for the wisdom of our founding fathers than ever. As I posted in another thread, there is no room within our Constitution, and therefore our laws, for any laws respecting religion. Only for the provision and protection of everyone's natural rights. And it's a subject that needs to be had on a national level... at least in my seldom humble opinion.



posted on Jan, 31 2015 @ 10:19 AM
link   
a reply to: Boadicea

Absolutely fantastic post.
Especially at this time, when we have religions trying (and sometimes successfully) to force laws that respect an establishment of religion.



posted on Jan, 31 2015 @ 12:36 PM
link   

originally posted by: Benevolent Heretic
a reply to: Boadicea

Absolutely fantastic post.
Especially at this time, when we have religions trying (and sometimes successfully) to force laws that respect an establishment of religion.


Thanks. I had a hard time putting the thoughts into words and I wasn't sure if I did it justice. But I agree, it's important to make the distinction along with the whys and wherefores for that very reason.



posted on Jan, 31 2015 @ 01:23 PM
link   

originally posted by: Michaelfunction
The Constitution, and Bill of Rights, at its foundation, is our inalienably rights, which are given by God. The Natural law, and Common law, again at its core foundation, are God given rights, and the right of ownership, (or property rights). Unless you're female like me, then you'd BE property. Harf harf harf.

This is all based on the presupposition of the existence of God, (or Creator).

Property rights are based on the assumption that there is a god? Not sure how you figured that one out.

So the movement to get God out of the Constitution, would open the door to man's law, which could legislate by decision, our inalienable rights into non existence.

Actually, turning things into a bible based law structure would eliminate all of my freedom as an individual because I have a vagina. Try reading it again because I don't think you understood that part.

I do not think (We The People) want that to happen.

We the people, or you da man? Because the bible doesn't give women rights at all.

What do you think? Do you want TPTB to have that open door, to be placed under man's law. I know it seems like we are under that right now. The reason we feel that way is, we don't have the knowledge to defend our rights. If you want to know what you can do to get involved, and learn how to defend your rights check out

www.nationallibertyalliance.org...

So I'm asking do we really want God out of the Constitution!!!!



And in ending my answer to this topic:

Yes of course I do. First, I don't believe in a god so why would I want my life decided by some invisible sky monster? Second, I am a woman and I like being able to live freely and continue having serious relations with my girlfriend. Keep this nonsense away from me. I like myself too much to be traded for some shekels.
edit on 31-1-2015 by OrphanApology because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 1 2015 @ 12:52 AM
link   
Yes.
God is a fictional character. He should have no more to do with our laws than Galactus.



posted on Feb, 1 2015 @ 10:22 PM
link   
a reply to: Boadicea

I like how you presented our rights as endowed by our creator.

You pointed out what I had just posted before, however, your presentation was geared toward sensitive interest groups who may believe certain dogmas concerning Judeo-Christian beliefs. It was perfectly articulated, understandable and clearly showed the spurious connection to any particular religion.

However, with this false notion that creator means the Judeo-Christian God, many people with dogmatic beliefs will extrapolate the meaning to include every dictate found in the Bible. They then become defensive, spouting the pre-programed rhetoric of their particular belief.

Case in point is the post 2nd up from mine, the one with four stars (amazingly enough). I wonder if O.A. even bothered to read past the word God in the original post?

For some people, words like "God", or worse "Jesus" are some kind of trigger words to justify regurgitating their rhetoric in perfect Pavlovian fashion.
edit on 1-2-2015 by MichiganSwampBuck because: For clarity



posted on Feb, 1 2015 @ 10:48 PM
link   
Thank you kindly for pointing that out I agree with you, so in the post I wish I used Creator, In every instance I used God even in the title, correction appreciated. a reply to: MichiganSwampBuck



posted on Feb, 1 2015 @ 11:22 PM
link   
a reply to: Michaelfunction

I don't think that God is the wrong term myself, I take it to mean the creator of the universe, and of course human beings.

I thought you explained it as well as Boadicea or myself, except that word "God" is a trigger word that is somehow associated with ignorance and oppression, but in common usage it may just mean the creator of all things, whatever that is.

There are all kinds of politically charged trigger words, it is unfortunate that God is one of those words.



posted on Feb, 2 2015 @ 06:55 AM
link   

originally posted by: MichiganSwampBuck
a reply to: Boadicea

I like how you presented our rights as endowed by our creator.


Thank you -- both for these kind words, and for your post which set the premise and allowed me to expand on it. It isn't always easy presenting complex concepts in simple understandable terms, eh?


For some people, words like "God", or worse "Jesus" are some kind of trigger words to justify regurgitating their rhetoric in perfect Pavlovian fashion.


Unfortunately, there is good reason for this reaction, and it isn't an accident or a simple misunderstanding. There are too many people who have been bludgeoned with the sword of faith by too many religious people who want to impose their "truth" on everyone. Religion has been weaponized to keep us divided. Which is why it's so important to make the distinction.



posted on Feb, 2 2015 @ 11:40 AM
link   
a reply to: Michaelfunction

Why would an Ultimate Creator be responsible for the Laws governing property that ultimately go against all of the OTHER laws laid out by this same so-called Creator.

This God's "Laws" are as destructive as a Volcano exploding on an Island that is being swamped by Tsunami.

It is too easy to corrupt these laws, and use them against the Good of All Mankind.



posted on Feb, 2 2015 @ 11:43 AM
link   

originally posted by: AprilFooseball
a reply to: Michaelfunction

I think that we need to stop using some mythical being as a crutch. So yes references to "god" need to be removed from our laws.

What word or wording would you suggest to replace the meaning implied by "God"? The intent, obviously is these rights are given to everyone simply because they exist and were born. While I'm not religious nor am I convinced that there is a biblical "God", I have no problem with using the word, or name. Why it bothers some people is really kind of silly. Unless it is just a personal attack to force others to follow their own beliefs. Or sticking a finger in someone's eye to be an ass. Which is what I believe in most cases.

It appears to be the same people who scream at Catholics about gays saying "live and let live" that later scream at Catholics "there is no god...give it up". A bit of a contradiction.

PS: Laws created "under God" also remove any possibility of man changing them as man cannot say that God made a mistake (or so it is said). Laws created by man can always be argued. So if you want some base rules, that no man can change...you kind of have to make them untouchable. Don't you?
edit on 2/2/2015 by WeAreAWAKE because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 2 2015 @ 12:40 PM
link   
So you want to get rid of one mythical being, and replace it with another.

Our rights come from the creator.

'Divine law'' versus political law.

Usurping natural law.

Like it or not our rights do not come from government.

They never have. It can not give you something you were born with.

ALL people. Men, and women.

Doesn't matter the politics of dividing, and conquering the masses in to thinking government is giving them something they don't already have.

WHAT A G'damn farce.

Be advised our rights have always been at the whim''s of 535 politicians on capitol shill.

The antithesis of 'divine' law.
edit on 2-2-2015 by neo96 because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 2 2015 @ 01:10 PM
link   

originally posted by: ParasuvO
a reply to: Michaelfunction

Why would an Ultimate Creator be responsible for the Laws governing property that ultimately go against all of the OTHER laws laid out by this same so-called Creator.


Not to speak for the OP -- or God -- but who would be more interested in the laws governing property than the creator of said property? For example, if one believes in a benevolent and loving God, then one would assume that God wants all His/Her beloved children to enjoy the bounties of the Earth that He/She created, including having a piece of land to make a home. In a purely humanitarian sense, we all have rights to a share of the earth resources, including a place to live. No one is born with a property deed tattooed on their butt, so no one "deserves" a home more than anyone else.

In a political or social sense, many of our founding fathers wanted every adult male to own property, because they felt it was important for the voting citizenry to have a stake in the county... something to protect and defend.

For all intents and purposes, what you referred to as God's Law and what our founding fathers called natural inalienable rights are what the UN and others call Human Rights today. But the bottom line is the same: Fundamental rights that sustain and nurture all humanity, inalienable and non-transferable.


It is too easy to corrupt these laws, and use them against the Good of All Mankind.


Indeed, man can and will corrupt anything and everything if given half the chance. Always have and always will. What would you suggest as a better foundation for defining our rights?



new topics

top topics



 
8
<<   2 >>

log in

join