Unamerican people need to leave America

reply to post by SpectreDC


Now you aren't making any sense.

You can't go talking about the "Law" of gravity when science is a man-made study and early people that we could now call scientist decided to use the word "Law" to make it easier for people to understand what they are talking about.

You are by its very nature talking about political theory. Its baffling how you can go and talk about how the US Constitution and the Deceleration of Independence as not being political theory they both play and intricate role in our lives today, seeing as one is the letter that was sent to King George and the other is the ruling document of the country.

Originally posted by NoJoker13
reply to post by SpectreDC

 

I understand much of your responses but what your insinuating is that Locke and his band weren't religious... Is that also true?

Absolutely not but the basis of Natural Law isn't founded on a religious premise.

In contrast, Thomas Aquinas, who also worked on the concept of Natural Law, was certainly religious and in his case yes, Natural Law does have influence from his religious belief.

Natural Law though, in and of itself, is not a religious concept. It is a concept of Ethical theory.

Originally posted by g146541
Before i even read any futher i'd like to educate that Canadians are American so are people from paraguay chile etc.

I agree that everyone from the northernmost part of Canada to the tip of Chile are Americans.

Another thing is that Mexico's proper name is "The United States of Mexico".

So the are not the only americans or the only United States but we have gotten used to calling them that.

[edit on 4-5-2010 by daskakik]

reply to post by SpectreDC


Then would it be rediculous to call "Natural" laws... Out of Date??? Since they seem not to matter in American politics?

reply to post by SpectreDC


Yet wouldn't you find it contradictory for a religious man, to have ideals that aren't religious? Wouldn't that be simply called blasphemy?

reply to post by NoJoker13

Very well said but what your saying is that for these rights to be anything at all that I must hold them to a "higher" power???

Not at all, you are free to hold whatever you wish to hold, as long as that holding does not abrogate or derogate the rights of others. What I am saying, is that in the context of this thread, the use of God Given rights is important in that it is recognizing that rights are not inventions of humanity, but are a part of the Natural Order.

This isn't a principle that comes from seeing a "higher" power but simply a principal that comes from common sense. Also I find it very ignorant to suggest that I'm an athiest because I bring up "Natural" law as being "God's" law.

I made no such suggestion nor any assumptions about you, and merely suggested that you are free to believe or disbelieve in God, and that rationally thinking atheists should see the wisdom in recognizing the power of phrases such as God Given rights.

People can be spiritual without believing in a MANMADE religion, maybe you should realize that and rethink your current sheeple stance (Where anyone who doesn't believe in "GOD" is an athiest.).

I did not in anyway suggest you were not spiritual, nor did I suggest you were an atheist, but your sensitivity on the issue seems to presume knowledge not so evident by your posts.

Originally posted by NoJoker13
reply to post by SpectreDC

 

Then would it be rediculous to call "Natural" laws... Out of Date??? Since they seem not to matter in American politics?

As ridiculous as calling the constitution out of date, the declaration of independence out of date....hell frankly the concept of Natural Law is in great part what brought rise to Liberalism in the world and the age of enlightenment during the 18th and 19th centuries.

Originally posted by NoJoker13
reply to post by SpectreDC

 

Yet wouldn't you find it contradictory for a religious man, to have ideals that aren't religious? Wouldn't that be simply called blasphemy?

Not if the ideals coincide with their religious convictions, which in the case of Natural Law certainly coincides with their religious convictions.

Ethics is another normative system like religion or law.





@Light of Night, you seem to be misunderstanding the purpose of this thread. I made it a little more clear in the last post of page 3 which I'll quote for convenience here:

Okay, people seem not to be getting what I'm saying, and I suspect it's own purpose in certain cases. I'm not arguing off of my own opinion any where in this thread. Natural Law is the basis of what America's principles are based off of, this is not my opinion, this is fact. Natural Law is referenced in the Declaration of Independence, the constitution, and the philosophies of many of our founding fathers, this is not my opinion, this is fact. And yet you have "patriotic Americans" preaching and crying about the DoI, the Constitution, the founding fathers....and yet completely contradict themselves when they start shouting for the natural rights of others to be infringed. This isn't my opinion, this is fact. I'm calling people out for being hypocrites and sycophants, cherry picking what is convenient for them to say at certain times to make their plights and arguments more impacting.

[edit on 4-5-2010 by SpectreDC]

reply to post by Jean Paul Zodeaux


So these "Natural" laws would seemed preordained??? If that were the case why do animals murder each other for food? Also if you weren't insisting I'm an athiest why not omit this part: "Even the staunchest atheist, if thinking rationally, comes to understand the importance of inalienable rights. It is moot whether the inherent rights of people are God Granted or not, and one is using such phraseology, what they are insisting is that no human may claim power to grant or take away the Natural Rights of people."????? Because to me it seems you put it there for a reason. I may be wrong but I think they call that persuasive writing.

reply to post by SpectreDC


Exactly the 18th and 19th century is "out of date" and yes so is the constitution. Also I see why you started this thread and I'm very very very aginst immigration at this point.

[edit on 4-5-2010 by NoJoker13]

I have been coming on recently to ATS and end up leaving disgusted by some of the post, post regarding the arizona immigration law, post about how the american citizen who planted the bomb in time square should have no rights, post denigrating Islam, even today saw a post how the oil spill in the gulf was green propaganda.

I have to say this post gives me hope that some people on ATS still know what being an American means.

The New Colossus
Emma Lazarus

Not like the brazen giant of Greek fame,
With conquering limbs astride from land to land;
Here at our sea-washed, sunset gates shall stand
A mighty woman with a torch, whose flame
Is the imprisoned lightning, and her name
Mother of Exiles. From her beacon-hand
Glows world-wide welcome; her mild eyes command
The air-bridged harbor that twin cities frame.
"Keep ancient lands, your storied pomp!" cries she
With silent lips. "Give me your tired, your poor,
Your huddled masses yearning to breathe free,
The wretched refuse of your teeming shore.
Send these, the homeless, tempest-tossed to me,
I lift my lamp beside the golden door!"

Originally posted by NoJoker13
reply to post by Jean Paul Zodeaux

 

Because to me it seems you put it there for a reason. I may be wrong but I think they call that persuasive writing.

I think Jean was pointing out how the concept of Natural Law does not require religious belief to be self-evident.

reply to post by SpectreDC


But what you don't understand is that the DOI and the US Constitution was intended for US Citizens.

If it was meant for everybody in the entire world then after the USA gained its independence they would have went on a conquest to free everybody in the entire world.

What I think the problem is that people are trying to take what was written and apply it to everybody in the entire world. Which not everybody in the entire world want freedom, some people want to be oppressed. Some people want to be ruled by the government and told everything they do and what to do from cradle to grave.

The DOI and US Constitution only applies to US Citizens. If somebody wants the rights afforded to people by the the US Constitution then they need to make the moves necessary to become a US Citizen.

Originally posted by NoJoker13
reply to post by SpectreDC

 

Exactly the 18th and 19th century is "out of date" and yes so is the constitution. Also I see why you started this thread and I'm very very very against immigration at this point.

[edit on 4-5-2010 by NoJoker13]

Immigration doesn't have any bearing on this thread, I don't see why you bring it up.

And I don't see how the constitution is out of date, nor theories, concepts and ideas from the age of enlightenment. They are certainly old and thus literally "out of date" but figuratively speaking they still stand. Unless you want to explain otherwise, I don't see how you can say these things don't matter anymore.

O.k. ..... hmmmmm?! IMO the matter is extremely clear cut. "Illegal" immigrants. Did you see it? Here it is again......"ILLEGAL". Not just the word "IMMIGRANTS". We welcome immigrants who come here in a legal fashion.
Its like saying you welcome company to your home anytime. Most of the people show up at a reasonable time and knock before being asked in. One night at about 3am you hear the door crash off the hinges, you rush downstairs to see what has happened, only to find a family sitting around your tv, eating your food. You want them to leave but you told them they could come over. Weeks go by, your running out of money and food. Your kids are hungry. your daughter looks up at you and says" daddy, Im hungry!". You answer" Sorry hunny Ive got to make sure our company doesnt feel unwanted."
Weeks go by and the "company has not contributed to your family(taxes). Now your family is fighting amongst itselves, starving, going without!
What could we have done to save our families? How about we LOCK THE DOOR? Lets only let people in that we know! Duh!

Click here for more information.

reply to post by NoJoker13

So these "Natural" laws would seemed preordained???

It is self evident that People preexist government, and are in fact the creators of government. It is foolish to believe People created government in order to have rights granted them. It is far less foolish to understand that governments are created to for one of two reasons, to either oppress the rights of People or to protect them. Either way, People consent to be governed, or they don't.

If that were the case why do animals murder each other for food?

Murder is a legal term that does not include the Natural Right to self defense, nor does it include the Natural right to survive, otherwise the slaughter of animals by humans would be construed as murder and then subject to that law of murder. Anyone who has ever owned a dog and has had the unfortunate experience of facing a life threatening experience with that dog, knows all too well how clearly that dog understands the right to self defense and the defense of loved ones. Indeed, dogs and humans both have been known to defend the lives of People they hardly know.

Also if you weren't insisting I'm an athiest why not omit this part: "Even the staunchest atheist, if thinking rationally, comes to understand the importance of inalienable rights. It is moot whether the inherent rights of people are God Granted or not, and one is using such phraseology, what they are insisting is that no human may claim power to grant or take away the Natural Rights of people."????? Because to me it seems you put it there for a reason. I may be wrong but I think they call that persuasive writing.

Why omit it? What problem do you have with such a statement? You are free to disagree with it, but you have failed to show how this statement has in anyway presumed your own spiritual beliefs. I most certainly did put that statement there for a reason, and I am indeed making persuasive arguments. It is pointless to take my arguments as a personal attack on you. You pointedly asked for anyone to respond to your fallacious argument posing as a question, and I answered it. Is this not what you asked for?

Click here for more information.

Originally posted by SpectreDC

Originally posted by NoJoker13
reply to post by Jean Paul Zodeaux

 

Because to me it seems you put it there for a reason. I may be wrong but I think they call that persuasive writing.

I think Jean was pointing out how the concept of Natural Law does not require religious belief to be self-evident.

Thank you Spectre, not just for clarifying that thought, but for your great thread and posts. It is nice to know you are around.

reply to post by SpectreDC


I think that, maybe except for some other nationalities, Mexicans have every right to cross the border and remain in Arizona, Colorado, Nevada, California, etc., as long as they want, however they want, it's really their land as the U.S took it illegally from them. In other words, they're reclaiming what it's truly still theirs. Why do you think Los Angeles is called as such and not "The Angels", or Nevada isn't called "Snowed"? These are Mexican names. If anything the Americans who live there need to get the hell out and learn that they are living in occupied territory.

Peace!

Originally posted by Light of Night
reply to post by SpectreDC

 

If somebody wants the rights afforded to people by the the US Constitution

I could have gone through your post and dissected it but after reading this I had to stop. The US Constitution does not afford rights to any person, it tells the government what it can and can not do to its people.

The following from Thomas Paine accurately paints the picture of what the framers of our constitution tried to do.

It is a perversion of terms to say that a charter gives rights. It operates by a contrary effect — that of taking rights away. Rights are inherently in all the inhabitants; but charters, by annulling those rights, in the majority, leave the right, by exclusion, in the hands of a few. ... They...consequently are instruments of injustice. The fact therefore must be that the individuals themselves, each in his own personal and sovereign right, entered into a contract with each other to produce a government: and this is the only mode in which governments have a right to arise, and the only principle on which they have a right to exist.