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.
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?
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.
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???
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.
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.).
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 Out of Date???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?
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?
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.
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.
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]
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.
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.
Originally posted by Light of Night
reply to post by SpectreDC
If somebody wants the rights afforded to people by the the US Constitution
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.