| Topic: |
Religions > Atheism |
| User: |
"" |
| Date: |
10 Jan 2005 08:54:16 AM |
| Object: |
The Origins of Human Rights |
http://search.barnesandnoble.com/booksearch/isbnInquiry.asp?userid=ba65noeAxi&isbn=0465017134&itm=3
Rights from Wrongs: The Origins of Human Rights in the Experiences of
Injustice
FROM THE PUBLISHER
"In Rights from Wrongs, renowned legal scholar Alan Dershowitz puts forward
a wholly new and compelling answer to one of the most persistent dilemmas
in both law and moral philosophy: where do our rights come from? Does
something called "natural law" really exist outside of what is written in
constitutions and legal statutes? If so, how can we know what this law
says, and why are rights not the same everywhere and in all eras?" In this
book, Dershowitz offers a fresh resolution to this age-old dilemma: Rights,
he argues, do not come from God, nature, logic, or law alone. They arise
out of particular human experiences with injustice. While justice is an
elusive concept, hard to define, and subject to conflicting
interpretations, injustice is immediate, intuitive, widely agreed upon, and
very tangible. Rights from Wrongs is the first book to propose a theory of
rights that emerges not from some theory of perfect justice but from its
opposite: from the bottom up, from trial and error, and from our collective
experience of injustice. Human rights come from human wrongs.
FROM THE CRITICS
Publisher's Weekly
The double meaning in Dershowitz's title indicates just one of the
insightful thoughts that mark the well-known Harvard law professor's latest
work. In tracing the evolution of rights, he argues forcefully against any
concept of natural rights deriving from religion and from law. Defining
himself as a pragmatist, Dershowitz asserts that human rights derive from
the world's experience with "wrongs," i.e., injustice. Only after seeing
genocide, for example, did the notion develop that this was a violation of
human rights. Dershowitz (Supreme Injustice) has a rare ability to develop
complex ideas in readable prose. In the book's first half, he carefully
examines the rationale for an experiential approach to rights; the second
half applies this approach to some of today's hot-button issues. Dershowitz
is often on the liberal side: for instance, he has little stomach for
literal interpretations of the Constitution-what he calls the "dead
constitution" approach. But he can surprise: he argues, for instance, that
Justice Scalia's "dead constitution" approach led him to a firmer defense
of individual rights than other justices in the recent Hamdi case. Whether
conservative or liberal, absolutist or relativist, readers will find areas
of disagreement, but most will concur that a talented and creative legal
mind is at work. Agent, Helen Rees Literary Agency. (Nov. 12) Copyright
2004 Reed Business Information.
*********************************************************************************
.
|
|
| User: "Carol Lee Smith" |
|
| Title: Re: The Origins of Human Rights |
14 Jan 2005 09:28:56 PM |
|
|
On Thu, 13 Jan 2005, Curly Surmudgeon wrote:
You called him a fool, that's an ad homenim.
Agreed but irrelevant to ad homenims.
ad hominem
http://www.sacklunch.net/Latin/A/adhominem.html
.
|
|
|
| User: "zerkanX" |
|
| Title: Re: The Origins of Human Rights |
22 Jan 2005 08:08:38 AM |
|
|
On Fri, 14 Jan 2005 21:28:56 -0600, Carol Lee Smith wrote:
ad hominem
et ad nauseam?
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Dr. James Slaughter" |
|
| Title: Re: The Origins of Human Rights |
13 Jan 2005 09:20:45 PM |
|
|
The origin of all human rights is God, as acknowledged by the Founding
Fathers.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Dave Thompson" |
|
| Title: Re: The Origins of Human Rights |
13 Jan 2005 10:22:27 PM |
|
|
"Dr. James Slaughter" <jslaughter@criswell.edu> wrote in message
news:Xns95DDD924CBBCCjesys@151.164.30.42...
The origin of all human rights is God,
The origin of human rights is civilization, education, industrialization,
philosophy, and revolution.
as acknowledged by the Founding
Fathers.
Why do you consider their opinion (incorrectly) better than anyone else's?
They were men with their own prejudices and preconceived notions. If they
didn't put it in the Constitution, I have no reason to follow their command.
Sorry, dumbshit, you lose.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: The Origins of Human Rights |
16 Jan 2005 08:41:18 AM |
|
|
"Dr. James Slaughter" <jslaughter@criswell.edu> wrote:
:|The origin of all human rights is God, as acknowledged by the Founding
:|Fathers.
Our founding document of liberty, the Declaration of Independence, pointed
to God as the source of our rights. Among the "truths" that were regarded
by our founding fathers as "self-evident" was the proposition that certain
rights were "unalienable" because their source was neither government nor
popular acceptance, but the endowment of the "Creator." What God gives, no
human can take away. As the young Alexander Hamilton insisted on the eve of
the American Revolution: "The sacred rights of mankind are not to be
rummaged for among old parchments or musty records.... They are written, as
with a sunbeam, in the whole volume of human nature by the hand of the
divinity itself and can never be erased or obscured by mortal power."2 Nor
is this an anachronistic view. President George W. Bush put it this way in
2002: "We need common sense judges who understand our rights were derived
from God."3
If only it were that simple! If only it were true that a God, in whom
everyone believed, had come down from the heavens and given the entire
world an unambiguous list of the rights with which He endowed us. How much
easier it would be to defend these sacred rights from alienation by mere
mortals. Alas, the claim that rights were written down by the hand of the
divinity is one of those founding myths to which we desperately cling,
along with the giving of the Tablets to Moses on Sinai, the dictation of
the Koran to Muhammad, and the discovery of the Gold Plates by Joseph
Smith.
To the extent the divine source and unalienability of our rights are
purported to be factual, history has proved our founding fathers plainly
wrong: Every right has in fact been alienated by governments since the
beginning of time. Within a generation of the establishment of our nation,
the founding fathers rescinded virtually every right they had previously
declared unalienable. John Adams, one of the drafters of the Declaration of
Independence, alienated the right to speak freely and express dissenting
views when, as president, he enforced the Alien and Sedition Acts against
his political opponents-with Hamilton's strong support.4 (Perhaps
Hamilton's God had not given "sacred rights" to Jeffersonians!) Another of
the drafters, Thomas Jefferson, alienated the most basic of rights-to the
equal protection of the laws, based on the "truth" that "all men are
created equal"-when he helped to write (and strengthen) Virginia's "Slave
Code," just a few years after drafting the Declaration of Independence. The
revised Code denied Negro slaves the right to liberty and to the pursuit of
happiness by punishing attempted escape with"outlawry" or death. Jefferson
personally suspected that "the blacks ... are inferior to the whites in the
endowments of body and mind." In other words, they were endowed by their
creator not with equality but with inferiority.
There is no right that has not been suspended or trampled during times of
crisis and war, even by our greatest presidents. Washington was a strong
supporter of the Alien and Sedition Acts. Lincoln suspended the writ of
habeas corpus. Wilson authorized the "Palmer raids," in which his attorney
general seized, arrested, and imprisoned thousands of suspected radicals in
violation of their rights. Roosevelt ordered the detention of more than
100,000 Americans of Japanese descent without even a semblance of due
process. He also convened a military tribunal to try-without a jury-an
American citizen caught spying for Germany in the United States. And
Presidents Truman and Eisenhower, despite their personal dislike of Senator
Joseph McCarthy, alienated the rights of political dissent during the Cold
War by enforcing the persecution of Communists, former Communists, and
those suspected of leftist sympathies.
These precedents and others have been cited by President George W. Bush,
his attorney general, and some judges to justify-the alienation of some of
our most important rights (perhaps Bush's God did not bestow these rights
on American citizens suspected of terrorism or foreigners detained at
Guantanamo, Cuba). The difference is that in the past, the alienations were
temporary, lasting only as long as the war or emergency. But the "war"
against terrorism is, by its nature, unending. There will be no formal
surrender by our current enemies. There will be no peace treaty, parades,
or victory days. Whatever alienations of our fundamental rights are
authorized by the courts today will endure for generations. Alienation may
well become the norm.
NOTES:
2. Quoted in Ron Chernow, Alexander Hamilton (New York: Penguin, 2004), p.
60.
3. Alessandra Stanley, "Understanding the President and His God," New York
Times, April 29, 2004, p. El.
4. See David McGowan, "Ethos in Law and History: Alexander Hamilton, The
Federalist, and the Supreme Court," 85 Minnesota Law Review 755 (2001), pp.
778-779 (noting Hamilton's support, as demonstrated by his reaction to the
Virginia and Kentucky resolutions, which opposed the Alien and Sedition
Acts; among other things, Hamilton recommended using military force to
"persuade" Virginia that the Alien and Sedition Acts were appropriate).
SOURCE: Rights From Wrongs, A Secular Theory of the Origins of Rights. Alan
Dershowitz, Basic Books, A Member of the Perseus Boom Group, N.Y. (2004)
pp. 2-3
.
|
|
|
| User: "Shadow Walker" |
|
| Title: Re: The Origins of Human Rights |
16 Jan 2005 10:10:25 AM |
|
|
wrote:
"Dr. James Slaughter" <jslaughter@criswell.edu> wrote:
:|The origin of all human rights is God, as acknowledged by the Founding
:|Fathers.
Our founding document of liberty, the Declaration of Independence, pointed
to God as the source of our rights. Among the "truths" that were regarded
by our founding fathers as "self-evident" was the proposition that certain
rights were "unalienable" because their source was neither government nor
popular acceptance, but the endowment of the "Creator." What God gives, no
human can take away. As the young Alexander Hamilton insisted on the eve of
the American Revolution: "The sacred rights of mankind are not to be
rummaged for among old parchments or musty records.... They are written, as
with a sunbeam, in the whole volume of human nature by the hand of the
divinity itself and can never be erased or obscured by mortal power."2 Nor
is this an anachronistic view. President George W. Bush put it this way in
2002: "We need common sense judges who understand our rights were derived
from God."3
Which one, Zeus ???
The DOI spoke of the "God of Nature" to make -sure- you understood this
wasn't God the way most people think of it.
They also went out of their way to use words like Creator,
and Nature every where they could, just to convey this
wasn't the God of the Christian King, and their beliefs and contexts.
You will actually find Jefferson went so far as to rewrite the
New Testament, removing all references of divinity of
Jesus... these were not Xians the way you think of them.
These were children of "the enlightenment", a movement that
was ending the "superstitious rule" of the middle ages, and
ushering in a world based upon the "laws of nature", we
often called -science-....
Hence why Franklin was so involved in inventing, and electricity..
"The Enlightenment."
If only it were that simple! If only it were true that a God, in whom
everyone believed, had come down from the heavens and given the entire
world an unambiguous list of the rights with which He endowed us. How much
easier it would be to defend these sacred rights from alienation by mere
mortals. Alas, the claim that rights were written down by the hand of the
divinity is one of those founding myths to which we desperately cling,
along with the giving of the Tablets to Moses on Sinai, the dictation of
the Koran to Muhammad, and the discovery of the Gold Plates by Joseph
Smith.
I suspect, a true insight into the founders, would lead you to Bacon,
who was only one step away from declaring each individual had rights,
as they have awareness, and a sense of "being"....
Bacon equated this awareness of being alive, with the soul... and
then from there, declared the soul divine. Hence, where we get all
those rights....
Not because some long bearded stooge waved a magic pixie wand,
and suddenly we all had rights....
..but because, we , each and everyone of us, is -aware-, is -alive-.
To the extent the divine source and unalienability of our rights are
purported to be factual, history has proved our founding fathers plainly
wrong: Every right has in fact been alienated by governments since the
beginning of time. Within a generation of the establishment of our nation,
the founding fathers rescinded virtually every right they had previously
declared unalienable. John Adams, one of the drafters of the Declaration of
Independence, alienated the right to speak freely and express dissenting
views when, as president, he enforced the Alien and Sedition Acts against
his political opponents-with Hamilton's strong support.4 (Perhaps
Hamilton's God had not given "sacred rights" to Jeffersonians!) Another of
the drafters, Thomas Jefferson, alienated the most basic of rights-to the
equal protection of the laws, based on the "truth" that "all men are
created equal"-when he helped to write (and strengthen) Virginia's "Slave
Code," just a few years after drafting the Declaration of Independence. The
revised Code denied Negro slaves the right to liberty and to the pursuit of
happiness by punishing attempted escape with"outlawry" or death. Jefferson
personally suspected that "the blacks ... are inferior to the whites in the
endowments of body and mind." In other words, they were endowed by their
creator not with equality but with inferiority.
There is no right that has not been suspended or trampled during times of
crisis and war, even by our greatest presidents. Washington was a strong
supporter of the Alien and Sedition Acts. Lincoln suspended the writ of
habeas corpus. Wilson authorized the "Palmer raids," in which his attorney
general seized, arrested, and imprisoned thousands of suspected radicals in
violation of their rights. Roosevelt ordered the detention of more than
100,000 Americans of Japanese descent without even a semblance of due
process. He also convened a military tribunal to try-without a jury-an
American citizen caught spying for Germany in the United States. And
Presidents Truman and Eisenhower, despite their personal dislike of Senator
Joseph McCarthy, alienated the rights of political dissent during the Cold
War by enforcing the persecution of Communists, former Communists, and
those suspected of leftist sympathies.
So, the real question is "Why repeat the -mistakes- of the past" ?
It was bad news then, it is bad news now. History repeats itself,
unless we learn from history.
These precedents and others have been cited by President George W. Bush,
his attorney general, and some judges to justify-the alienation of some of
our most important rights (perhaps Bush's God did not bestow these rights
on American citizens suspected of terrorism or foreigners detained at
Guantanamo, Cuba). The difference is that in the past, the alienations were
temporary, lasting only as long as the war or emergency. But the "war"
against terrorism is, by its nature, unending. There will be no formal
surrender by our current enemies. There will be no peace treaty, parades,
or victory days. Whatever alienations of our fundamental rights are
authorized by the courts today will endure for generations. Alienation may
well become the norm.
Then, America will fall.
NOTES:
2. Quoted in Ron Chernow, Alexander Hamilton (New York: Penguin, 2004), p.
60.
3. Alessandra Stanley, "Understanding the President and His God," New York
Times, April 29, 2004, p. El.
4. See David McGowan, "Ethos in Law and History: Alexander Hamilton, The
Federalist, and the Supreme Court," 85 Minnesota Law Review 755 (2001), pp.
778-779 (noting Hamilton's support, as demonstrated by his reaction to the
Virginia and Kentucky resolutions, which opposed the Alien and Sedition
Acts; among other things, Hamilton recommended using military force to
"persuade" Virginia that the Alien and Sedition Acts were appropriate).
SOURCE: Rights From Wrongs, A Secular Theory of the Origins of Rights. Alan
Dershowitz, Basic Books, A Member of the Perseus Boom Group, N.Y. (2004)
pp. 2-3
.
|
|
|
| User: "Elroy Willis" |
|
| Title: Re: The Origins of Human Rights |
21 Jan 2005 11:35:02 AM |
|
|
Shadow Walker <shadow@onecall.net> wrote in alt.atheism
buckeye-ELO@nospam.net wrote:
Dr. James Slaughter <jslaughter@criswell.edu> wrote:
:|The origin of all human rights is God, as acknowledged by the Founding
:|Fathers.
Our founding document of liberty, the Declaration of Independence, pointed
to God as the source of our rights. Among the "truths" that were regarded
by our founding fathers as "self-evident" was the proposition that certain
rights were "unalienable" because their source was neither government nor
popular acceptance, but the endowment of the "Creator." What God gives, no
human can take away. As the young Alexander Hamilton insisted on the eve of
the American Revolution: "The sacred rights of mankind are not to be
rummaged for among old parchments or musty records.... They are written, as
with a sunbeam, in the whole volume of human nature by the hand of the
divinity itself and can never be erased or obscured by mortal power."2 Nor
is this an anachronistic view. President George W. Bush put it this way in
2002: "We need common sense judges who understand our rights were derived
from God."3
Which one, Zeus ???
Yes, that's a good guess, since the symbol for Zeus/Jupiter was an
Eagle, just like we have as our national symbol and on our seal. Even
the Nazis used the same symbol of the eagle to represent ultimate
power, like the USA claims itself as a superpower of the world.
The ancient Romans pledged allegiance to Jupiter, and by Jove
they swore, before giving testimony in courts of law ruled over by
the planet Jupiter, the shining father planet-god in the sky.
--
Elroy Willis
EAP Chief Editor and Newshound
www.elroysemporium.com/news
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: The Origins of Human Rights |
16 Jan 2005 11:19:08 AM |
|
|
Shadow Walker <shadow@onecall.net> wrote:
:| wrote:
:|> "Dr. James Slaughter" <jslaughter@criswell.edu> wrote:
:|>
:|>
:|>>:|The origin of all human rights is God, as acknowledged by the Founding
:|>>:|Fathers.
:|>
:|>
:|>
:|> Our founding document of liberty, the Declaration of Independence, pointed
:|> to God as the source of our rights. Among the "truths" that were regarded
:|> by our founding fathers as "self-evident" was the proposition that certain
:|> rights were "unalienable" because their source was neither government nor
:|> popular acceptance, but the endowment of the "Creator." What God gives, no
:|> human can take away. As the young Alexander Hamilton insisted on the eve of
:|> the American Revolution: "The sacred rights of mankind are not to be
:|> rummaged for among old parchments or musty records.... They are written, as
:|> with a sunbeam, in the whole volume of human nature by the hand of the
:|> divinity itself and can never be erased or obscured by mortal power."2 Nor
:|> is this an anachronistic view. President George W. Bush put it this way in
:|> 2002: "We need common sense judges who understand our rights were derived
:|> from God."3
:|
:| Which one, Zeus ???
:|
:| The DOI spoke of the "God of Nature" to make -sure- you understood this
:|wasn't God the way most people think of it.
:|
Who are you replying to?
:| They also went out of their way to use words like Creator,
:|and Nature every where they could, just to convey this
:|wasn't the God of the Christian King, and their beliefs and contexts.
:| You will actually find Jefferson went so far as to rewrite the
:|New Testament, removing all references of divinity of
:|Jesus... these were not Xians the way you think of them.
Who is this you you think you are replying to?
Do you understand that
:|> "Dr. James Slaughter" <jslaughter@criswell.edu> wrote:
:|>
:|>
:|>>:|The origin of all human rights is God, as acknowledged by the Founding
:|>>:|Fathers.
had posted the above and I
posted the rest, that is that which you appear to be actually were
replying or commenting on. However, what I posted was actually written by
Alan Dershowitz in his new book:
SOURCE: Rights From Wrongs, A Secular Theory of the Origins of Rights. Alan
Dershowitz, Basic Books, A Member of the Perseus Boom Group, N.Y. (2004)
pp. 1-3
.
|
|
|
| User: "Shadow Walker" |
|
| Title: Re: The Origins of Human Rights |
16 Jan 2005 11:47:49 AM |
|
|
wrote:
Shadow Walker <shadow@onecall.net> wrote:
:| wrote:
:|> "Dr. James Slaughter" <jslaughter@criswell.edu> wrote:
:|>
:|>
:|>>:|The origin of all human rights is God, as acknowledged by the Founding
:|>>:|Fathers.
:|>
:|>
:|>
:|> Our founding document of liberty, the Declaration of Independence, pointed
:|> to God as the source of our rights. Among the "truths" that were regarded
:|> by our founding fathers as "self-evident" was the proposition that certain
:|> rights were "unalienable" because their source was neither government nor
:|> popular acceptance, but the endowment of the "Creator." What God gives, no
:|> human can take away. As the young Alexander Hamilton insisted on the eve of
:|> the American Revolution: "The sacred rights of mankind are not to be
:|> rummaged for among old parchments or musty records.... They are written, as
:|> with a sunbeam, in the whole volume of human nature by the hand of the
:|> divinity itself and can never be erased or obscured by mortal power."2 Nor
:|> is this an anachronistic view. President George W. Bush put it this way in
:|> 2002: "We need common sense judges who understand our rights were derived
:|> from God."3
:|
:| Which one, Zeus ???
:|
:| The DOI spoke of the "God of Nature" to make -sure- you understood this
:|wasn't God the way most people think of it.
:|
Who are you replying to?
See below.
:| They also went out of their way to use words like Creator,
:|and Nature every where they could, just to convey this
:|wasn't the God of the Christian King, and their beliefs and contexts.
:| You will actually find Jefferson went so far as to rewrite the
:|New Testament, removing all references of divinity of
:|Jesus... these were not Xians the way you think of them.
Who is this you you think you are replying to?
Do you understand that
:|> "Dr. James Slaughter" <jslaughter@criswell.edu> wrote:
:|>
:|>
:|>>:|The origin of all human rights is God, as acknowledged by the Founding
:|>>:|Fathers.
had posted the above and I
posted the rest, that is that which you appear to be actually were
replying or commenting on. However, what I posted was actually written by
Alan Dershowitz in his new book:
SOURCE: Rights From Wrongs, A Secular Theory of the Origins of Rights. Alan
Dershowitz, Basic Books, A Member of the Perseus Boom Group, N.Y. (2004)
pp. 1-3
Then I am replying to -her-. :)
Getting published, doesn't make one -right-!
But bare in mind, when you post and quote someone,
without debating or debasing it,
you are silently concurring with that view.
.
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: The Origins of Human Rights |
17 Jan 2005 05:31:13 AM |
|
|
Shadow Walker <shadow@onecall.net> wrote:
:| wrote:
:|> Shadow Walker <shadow@onecall.net> wrote:
:|>
:|>
:|>>:| wrote:
:|>>:|> "Dr. James Slaughter" <jslaughter@criswell.edu> wrote:
:|>>:|>
:|>>:|>
:|>>:|>>:|The origin of all human rights is God, as acknowledged by the Founding
:|>>:|>>:|Fathers.
:|>>:|>
:|>>:|>
:|>>:|>
:|>>:|> Our founding document of liberty, the Declaration of Independence, pointed
:|>>:|> to God as the source of our rights. Among the "truths" that were regarded
:|>>:|> by our founding fathers as "self-evident" was the proposition that certain
:|>>:|> rights were "unalienable" because their source was neither government nor
:|>>:|> popular acceptance, but the endowment of the "Creator." What God gives, no
:|>>:|> human can take away. As the young Alexander Hamilton insisted on the eve of
:|>>:|> the American Revolution: "The sacred rights of mankind are not to be
:|>>:|> rummaged for among old parchments or musty records.... They are written, as
:|>>:|> with a sunbeam, in the whole volume of human nature by the hand of the
:|>>:|> divinity itself and can never be erased or obscured by mortal power."2 Nor
:|>>:|> is this an anachronistic view. President George W. Bush put it this way in
:|>>:|> 2002: "We need common sense judges who understand our rights were derived
:|>>:|> from God."3
:|>>:|
:|>>:| Which one, Zeus ???
:|>>:|
:|>>:| The DOI spoke of the "God of Nature" to make -sure- you understood this
:|>>:|wasn't God the way most people think of it.
:|>>:|
:|>
:|>
:|> Who are you replying to?
:|
:| See below.
:|
:|>
:|>
:|>
:|>>:| They also went out of their way to use words like Creator,
:|>>:|and Nature every where they could, just to convey this
:|>>:|wasn't the God of the Christian King, and their beliefs and contexts.
:|>>:| You will actually find Jefferson went so far as to rewrite the
:|>>:|New Testament, removing all references of divinity of
:|>>:|Jesus... these were not Xians the way you think of them.
:|>
:|>
:|>
:|> Who is this you you think you are replying to?
:|>
:|> Do you understand that
:|>
:|>
:|>>:|> "Dr. James Slaughter" <jslaughter@criswell.edu> wrote:
:|>>:|>
:|>>:|>
:|>>:|>>:|The origin of all human rights is God, as acknowledged by the Founding
:|>>:|>>:|Fathers.
:|>
:|>
:|>
:|> had posted the above and I
:|> posted the rest, that is that which you appear to be actually were
:|> replying or commenting on. However, what I posted was actually written by
:|> Alan Dershowitz in his new book:
:|>
:|> SOURCE: Rights From Wrongs, A Secular Theory of the Origins of Rights. Alan
:|> Dershowitz, Basic Books, A Member of the Perseus Boom Group, N.Y. (2004)
:|> pp. 1-3
:|
:| Then I am replying to -her-. :)
:|
Her?
I don't know of any her in this conversation.
:| Getting published, doesn't make one -right-!
:|
Who are you referring to now.
If you mean Alan, he isn't a her and he is acknowledged as being someone
who knows what they speak of. Something you lack.
Posting in Usenet doesn't make you right, either. Especially when one posts
unsubstantiated personal pinions.
Based on your comments I wasn't impressed that you knew what you were
talking about nor that you had a clue what Alan was talking about.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Shadow Walker" |
|
| Title: Re: The Origins of Human Rights |
17 Jan 2005 01:29:16 PM |
|
|
wrote:
Shadow Walker <shadow@onecall.net> wrote:
:| wrote:
:|> Shadow Walker <shadow@onecall.net> wrote:
:|>
:|>
:|>>:| wrote:
:|>>:|> "Dr. James Slaughter" <jslaughter@criswell.edu> wrote:
:|>>:|>
:|>>:|>
:|>>:|>>:|The origin of all human rights is God, as acknowledged by the Founding
:|>>:|>>:|Fathers.
:|>>:|>
:|>>:|>
:|>>:|>
:|>>:|> Our founding document of liberty, the Declaration of Independence, pointed
:|>>:|> to God as the source of our rights. Among the "truths" that were regarded
:|>>:|> by our founding fathers as "self-evident" was the proposition that certain
:|>>:|> rights were "unalienable" because their source was neither government nor
:|>>:|> popular acceptance, but the endowment of the "Creator." What God gives, no
:|>>:|> human can take away. As the young Alexander Hamilton insisted on the eve of
:|>>:|> the American Revolution: "The sacred rights of mankind are not to be
:|>>:|> rummaged for among old parchments or musty records.... They are written, as
:|>>:|> with a sunbeam, in the whole volume of human nature by the hand of the
:|>>:|> divinity itself and can never be erased or obscured by mortal power."2 Nor
:|>>:|> is this an anachronistic view. President George W. Bush put it this way in
:|>>:|> 2002: "We need common sense judges who understand our rights were derived
:|>>:|> from God."3
:|>>:|
:|>>:| Which one, Zeus ???
:|>>:|
:|>>:| The DOI spoke of the "God of Nature" to make -sure- you understood this
:|>>:|wasn't God the way most people think of it.
:|>>:|
:|>
:|>
:|> Who are you replying to?
:|
:| See below.
:|
:|>
:|>
:|>
:|>>:| They also went out of their way to use words like Creator,
:|>>:|and Nature every where they could, just to convey this
:|>>:|wasn't the God of the Christian King, and their beliefs and contexts.
:|>>:| You will actually find Jefferson went so far as to rewrite the
:|>>:|New Testament, removing all references of divinity of
:|>>:|Jesus... these were not Xians the way you think of them.
:|>
:|>
:|>
:|> Who is this you you think you are replying to?
:|>
:|> Do you understand that
:|>
:|>
:|>>:|> "Dr. James Slaughter" <jslaughter@criswell.edu> wrote:
:|>>:|>
:|>>:|>
:|>>:|>>:|The origin of all human rights is God, as acknowledged by the Founding
:|>>:|>>:|Fathers.
:|>
:|>
:|>
:|> had posted the above and I
:|> posted the rest, that is that which you appear to be actually were
:|> replying or commenting on. However, what I posted was actually written by
:|> Alan Dershowitz in his new book:
:|>
:|> SOURCE: Rights From Wrongs, A Secular Theory of the Origins of Rights. Alan
:|> Dershowitz, Basic Books, A Member of the Perseus Boom Group, N.Y. (2004)
:|> pp. 1-3
:|
:| Then I am replying to -her-. :)
:|
Her?
I don't know of any her in this conversation.
:| Getting published, doesn't make one -right-!
:|
Who are you referring to now.
If you mean Alan, he isn't a her and he is acknowledged as being someone
who knows what they speak of. Something you lack.
Posting in Usenet doesn't make you right, either. Especially when one posts
unsubstantiated personal pinions.
Based on your comments I wasn't impressed that you knew what you were
talking about nor that you had a clue what Alan was talking about.
That's nice.
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: The Origins of Human Rights |
16 Jan 2005 11:13:21 AM |
|
|
Shadow Walker <shadow@onecall.net> wrote:
:|buckeye-ELO@nospam.net wrote:
:|> "Dr. James Slaughter" <jslaughter@criswell.edu> wrote:
:|>
:|>
:|>>:|The origin of all human rights is God, as acknowledged by the Founding
:|>>:|Fathers.
:|>
:|>
:|>
:|> Our founding document of liberty, the Declaration of Independence, pointed
:|> to God as the source of our rights. Among the "truths" that were regarded
:|> by our founding fathers as "self-evident" was the proposition that certain
:|> rights were "unalienable" because their source was neither government nor
:|> popular acceptance, but the endowment of the "Creator." What God gives, no
:|> human can take away. As the young Alexander Hamilton insisted on the eve of
:|> the American Revolution: "The sacred rights of mankind are not to be
:|> rummaged for among old parchments or musty records.... They are written, as
:|> with a sunbeam, in the whole volume of human nature by the hand of the
:|> divinity itself and can never be erased or obscured by mortal power."2 Nor
:|> is this an anachronistic view. President George W. Bush put it this way in
:|> 2002: "We need common sense judges who understand our rights were derived
:|> from God."3
:|
:| Which one, Zeus ???
:|
:| The DOI spoke of the "God of Nature" to make -sure- you understood this
:|wasn't God the way most people think of it.
:|
Who are you replying to?
:| They also went out of their way to use words like Creator,
:|and Nature every where they could, just to convey this
:|wasn't the God of the Christian King, and their beliefs and contexts.
:| You will actually find Jefferson went so far as to rewrite the
:|New Testament, removing all references of divinity of
:|Jesus... these were not Xians the way you think of them.
Who is this you you think you are replying to?
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: The Origins of Human Rights |
15 Jan 2005 06:31:11 AM |
|
|
"Dr. James Slaughter" <jslaughter@criswell.edu> wrote:
:|The origin of all human rights is God, as acknowledged by the Founding
:|Fathers.
Which founding fathers?
What evidence did they provide?
What were their qualifications that we should consider any such comments by
them to carry any weight?
.
|
|
|
| User: "Dana" |
|
| Title: Re: The Origins of Human Rights |
15 Jan 2005 08:01:00 PM |
|
|
wrote:
"Dr. James Slaughter" <jslaughter@criswell.edu> wrote:
:|The origin of all human rights is God, as acknowledged by the
:|Founding Fathers.
Which founding fathers?
The American Founding Fathers.
What were their qualifications that we should consider any such
comments by them to carry any weight?
More than what you have jailbird, yet you are in here mindlessly spewing
your anti-Christian bigotry.
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Dana" |
|
| Title: Re: The Origins of Human Rights |
14 Jan 2005 08:13:39 PM |
|
|
Dr. James Slaughter wrote:
The origin of all human rights is God, as acknowledged by the Founding
Fathers.
Actually it was a creator, and not a specific God.
.
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: The Origins of Human Rights |
14 Jan 2005 09:37:09 PM |
|
|
It was not "a creator," but "their creator." My creators were
my parents.
The founding fathers alienated human rights. (1) women could
not vote;
(2) blacks could not vote and were (3) slaves.
And it was "inalienable rights," not "human rights."
If they are guaranteed by a creator, we would have no need of
legislatures, Constitutions, governments and the like.
LR
.
|
|
|
| User: "George Ricker" |
|
| Title: Re: The Origins of Human Rights |
17 Jan 2005 12:34:28 PM |
|
|
In article <1105760229.785191.61360@c13g2000cwb.googlegroups.com>,
wrote:
It was not "a creator," but "their creator." My creators were
my parents.
The founding fathers alienated human rights. (1) women could
not vote;
(2) blacks could not vote and were (3) slaves.
And it was "inalienable rights," not "human rights."
If they are guaranteed by a creator, we would have no need of
legislatures, Constitutions, governments and the like.
LR
And that is precisely the point that gets lost on those who want to
claim that Jefferson's identification of a "Creator" as the author of
the unalienable rights he wrote about in the DOI means our government is
based on either a god or a religion.
What is most important in the Declaration is not the source of those
rights but the idea that men (women had no political rights) had to form
governments in order to secure those rights and that those governments
received their "just powers" from the consent of the governed (the
people), not from any gods.
The theory of government advanced in the DOI is that men have rights,
men create governments to secure those rights and those governments
receive their only legitimate authority from the people being governed.
It is a wholly secular design. Whatever the source of the rights in
question, government, as conceived in the DOI, is the business of human
beings. That's probably why, when they got around to writing the
Constitution that actually forms the basis of our government today,
"God" was left out of it altogether.
--
George Ricker
"'God did it' is not an answer. It is a
pietistic way of begging all questions."
.
|
|
|
| User: "Dana" |
|
| Title: Re: The Origins of Human Rights |
17 Jan 2005 05:48:11 PM |
|
|
George Ricker wrote:
In article <1105760229.785191.61360@c13g2000cwb.googlegroups.com>,
lanruvi2@yahoo.com wrote:
It was not "a creator," but "their creator." My creators were
my parents.
The founding fathers alienated human rights. (1) women could
not vote;
(2) blacks could not vote and were (3) slaves.
And it was "inalienable rights," not "human rights."
If they are guaranteed by a creator, we would have no need of
legislatures, Constitutions, governments and the like.
LR
And that is precisely the point that gets lost on those who want to
claim that Jefferson's identification of a "Creator" as the author of
the unalienable rights he wrote about in the DOI means our government
is based on either a god or a religion.
The only one making this claim is atheists from the left. No one who is
religious is claiming our government is a religious based government.
It is a Judeo/Christian belief that man is born with all his rights.
And when looked at with natural law, you can see where Jefferson came up
with his words for the DOI.
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Gray Shockley" |
|
| Title: Re: The Origins of Human Rights |
15 Jan 2005 02:15:07 AM |
|
|
On Thu, 13 Jan 2005 21:20:45 -0600, Dr. James Slaughter
wrote
(in article <Xns95DDD924CBBCCjesys@151.164.30.42>):
The origin of all human rights is God, as acknowledged by the Founding
Fathers.
Hm,m,m - you sure 'bout that?
Sure looked as if the military of the colonies/country
(depending on which side won, of course) had a lot more to
do with it than one of the gods.
Who wuz dunne said, "God is on the side of the heaviest
artillery"?
Those folks over in North Korea must not have heard that
"The origin of all human rights is God" or /their/
flounders just flat didn't acknowledge it or sumthin.
Or - a Chuckie Cornwallis never said - "Well, you blokes
sure got them thar rights now. Why doncha do the Freemason
Rites while yer at it?"
Gray Shockley
----------------------------
I jus' now dunne looked it up;
it twere ole Napoleon.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Dana" |
|
| Title: Re: The Origins of Human Rights |
15 Jan 2005 08:07:22 PM |
|
|
Gray Shockley wrote:
On Thu, 13 Jan 2005 21:20:45 -0600, Dr. James Slaughter
wrote
(in article <Xns95DDD924CBBCCjesys@151.164.30.42>):
The origin of all human rights is God, as acknowledged by the Founding
Fathers.
Hm,m,m - you sure 'bout that?
Shows you have no clue about Natural Law.
And it also shows you are ignorant of the contents of the DOI
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: The Origins of Human Rights |
23 Jan 2005 06:19:26 AM |
|
|
"zerkanX" <zerkanX@nospam.net> wrote:
:|On Wed, 12 Jan 2005 06:08:14 -0800, wrote:
:|
:|> They don't come from being human, they come from human beings.
:|
:|If you follow the belief that all people are born with them
:|(rights) then it follows that they do not come from people but from a condition
:|of birth as let's say lungs. We all have them but they did not come from us.
:|
:|You certainly can argue against this (ie humans are born with inalienable
:|rights) but that would be an argument against not for what was the centerpiece
:|of American philosophy.
:|
:|> The suggestion however that we "discover" these rights by experiencing
:|> injustice, parallels the BoR closely. 2 - 6 can almost be traced directly
:|> to actions of the government in the immediate vacinity (in time) to the
:|> creation of the BoR. One could suggest the same for much of what is in
:|> the Magna Carta as well. To some extent, Dershowitz is merely trying
:|> to acknowledge history.
:|
:|The question however isn't discovery it is origin. The air we breath was not
:|created by drowning but I'm sure a lot was discovered about it as a result.
:|Laws can be made about air, let's say, because of drowning but the laws have
:|nothing to do with the creation of air.
:|
:|So too the Magna Carta and the BoR as per the above given belief that one is
:|born into a condition and not granted it.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: The Origins of Human Rights |
22 Jan 2005 09:00:48 AM |
|
|
"zerkanX" <zerkanX@nospam.net> wrote:
:|On Wed, 12 Jan 2005 06:08:14 -0800, wrote:
:|
:|> They don't come from being human, they come from human beings.
:|
:|If you follow the belief that all people are born with them
:|(rights) then it follows that they do not come from people but from a condition
:|of birth as let's say lungs. We all have them but they did not come from us.
:|
:|You certainly can argue against this (ie humans are born with inalienable
:|rights) but that would be an argument against not for what was the centerpiece
:|of American philosophy.
:|
:|> The suggestion however that we "discover" these rights by experiencing
:|> injustice, parallels the BoR closely. 2 - 6 can almost be traced directly
:|> to actions of the government in the immediate vacinity (in time) to the
:|> creation of the BoR. One could suggest the same for much of what is in
:|> the Magna Carta as well. To some extent, Dershowitz is merely trying
:|> to acknowledge history.
:|
:|The question however isn't discovery it is origin. The air we breath was not
:|created by drowning but I'm sure a lot was discovered about it as a result.
:|Laws can be made about air, let's say, because of drowning but the laws have
:|nothing to do with the creation of air.
:|
:|So too the Magna Carta and the BoR as per the above given belief that one is
:|born into a condition and not granted it.
When you actually read the book get back to us.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: The Origins of Human Rights |
23 Jan 2005 07:07:28 AM |
|
|
"zerkanX" <zerkanX@nospam.net> wrote:
:|On Wed, 12 Jan 2005 06:08:14 -0800, wrote:
:|
:|> They don't come from being human, they come from human beings.
:|
:|If you follow the belief that all people are born with them
:|(rights) then it follows that they do not come from people but from a condition
:|of birth as let's say lungs. We all have them but they did not come from us.
Why should one follow that all people are born with rights?
Can you cite any examples that show people are born with rights?
There are a lot of examples showing that people may not be born with
rights, but rather that rights might actually be a condition of where and
when a person is born.
There is also historical evidence that sometimes such things as gender and
skin color can play a role in what rights a person might have as well.
Wealth and family position seems to have a role too sometimes.
:|
:|You certainly can argue against this (ie humans are born with inalienable
:|rights) but that would be an argument against not for what was the centerpiece
:|of American philosophy.
Was it or is it really? Philosophy, perhaps, but reality, hardly.
Even those who wrote or signed that DOI thingie didn't believe that or
practice that:
_________________________________________________________
"Dr. James Slaughter" <jslaughter@criswell.edu> wrote:
:|The origin of all human rights is God, as acknowledged by the Founding
:|Fathers.
Our founding document of liberty, the Declaration of Independence, pointed
to God as the source of our rights. Among the "truths" that were regarded
by our founding fathers as "self-evident" was the proposition that certain
rights were "unalienable" because their source was neither government nor
popular acceptance, but the endowment of the "Creator." What God gives, no
human can take away. As the young Alexander Hamilton insisted on the eve of
the American Revolution: "The sacred rights of mankind are not to be
rummaged for among old parchments or musty records.... They are written, as
with a sunbeam, in the whole volume of human nature by the hand of the
divinity itself and can never be erased or obscured by mortal power."2 Nor
is this an anachronistic view. President George W. Bush put it this way in
2002: "We need common sense judges who understand our rights were derived
from God."3
If only it were that simple! If only it were true that a God, in whom
everyone believed, had come down from the heavens and given the entire
world an unambiguous list of the rights with which He endowed us. How much
easier it would be to defend these sacred rights from alienation by mere
mortals. Alas, the claim that rights were written down by the hand of the
divinity is one of those founding myths to which we desperately cling,
along with the giving of the Tablets to Moses on Sinai, the dictation of
the Koran to Muhammad, and the discovery of the Gold Plates by Joseph
Smith.
To the extent the divine source and unalienability of our rights are
purported to be factual, history has proved our founding fathers plainly
wrong: Every right has in fact been alienated by governments since the
beginning of time. Within a generation of the establishment of our nation,
the founding fathers rescinded virtually every right they had previously
declared unalienable. John Adams, one of the drafters of the Declaration of
Independence, alienated the right to speak freely and express dissenting
views when, as president, he enforced the Alien and Sedition Acts against
his political opponents-with Hamilton's strong support.4 (Perhaps
Hamilton's God had not given "sacred rights" to Jeffersonians!) Another of
the drafters, Thomas Jefferson, alienated the most basic of rights-to the
equal protection of the laws, based on the "truth" that "all men are
created equal"-when he helped to write (and strengthen) Virginia's "Slave
Code," just a few years after drafting the Declaration of Independence. The
revised Code denied Negro slaves the right to liberty and to the pursuit of
happiness by punishing attempted escape with"outlawry" or death. Jefferson
personally suspected that "the blacks ... are inferior to the whites in the
endowments of body and mind." In other words, they were endowed by their
creator not with equality but with inferiority.
There is no right that has not been suspended or trampled during times of
crisis and war, even by our greatest presidents. Washington was a strong
supporter of the Alien and Sedition Acts. Lincoln suspended the writ of
habeas corpus. Wilson authorized the "Palmer raids," in which his attorney
general seized, arrested, and imprisoned thousands of suspected radicals in
violation of their rights. Roosevelt ordered the detention of more than
100,000 Americans of Japanese descent without even a semblance of due
process. He also convened a military tribunal to try-without a jury-an
American citizen caught spying for Germany in the United States. And
Presidents Truman and Eisenhower, despite their personal dislike of Senator
Joseph McCarthy, alienated the rights of political dissent during the Cold
War by enforcing the persecution of Communists, former Communists, and
those suspected of leftist sympathies.
These precedents and others have been cited by President George W. Bush,
his attorney general, and some judges to justify-the alienation of some of
our most important rights (perhaps Bush's God did not bestow these rights
on American citizens suspected of terrorism or foreigners detained at
Guantanamo, Cuba). The difference is that in the past, the alienations were
temporary, lasting only as long as the war or emergency. But the "war"
against terrorism is, by its nature, unending. There will be no formal
surrender by our current enemies. There will be no peace treaty, parades,
or victory days. Whatever alienations of our fundamental rights are
authorized by the courts today will endure for generations. Alienation may
well become the norm.
NOTES:
2. Quoted in Ron Chernow, Alexander Hamilton (New York: Penguin, 2004), p.
60.
3. Alessandra Stanley, "Understanding the President and His God," New York
Times, April 29, 2004, p. El.
4. See David McGowan, "Ethos in Law and History: Alexander Hamilton, The
Federalist, and the Supreme Court," 85 Minnesota Law Review 755 (2001), pp.
778-779 (noting Hamilton's support, as demonstrated by his reaction to the
Virginia and Kentucky resolutions, which opposed the Alien and Sedition
Acts; among other things, Hamilton recommended using military force to
"persuade" Virginia that the Alien and Sedition Acts were appropriate).
SOURCE: Rights From Wrongs, A Secular Theory of the Origins of Rights. Alan
Dershowitz, Basic Books, A Member of the Perseus Boom Group, N.Y. (2004)
pp. 2-3
:|
:|> The suggestion however that we "discover" these rights by experiencing
:|> injustice, parallels the BoR closely. 2 - 6 can almost be traced directly
:|> to actions of the government in the immediate vacinity (in time) to the
:|> creation of the BoR. One could suggest the same for much of what is in
:|> the Magna Carta as well. To some extent, Dershowitz is merely trying
:|> to acknowledge history.
:|
:|The question however isn't discovery it is origin. The air we breath was not
:|created by drowning but I'm sure a lot was discovered about it as a result.
:|Laws can be made about air, let's say, because of drowning but the laws have
:|nothing to do with the creation of air.
Your examples are pretty lame. Lungs, air, etc.
Laws can have a lot to do with rights. After all laws frequently establish
what one can't do thus implying at the same time what can be done ow what
is allowed to be done, thus a right. Laws frequently come about to prevent
or avoid something. Laws frequently came about as a result of people
living together and the laws resulted from some event, some action.
Gee, we are getting into "wrongs"
There are at least three books that Alan Dershowitz has written as he
developed this concept in his mind
The Genesis of Justice Ten stories of Bibical Injustice that Led to the
Ten Commandnents and Modern Law (2000)
America Declares Independence (2003)
Rights From Wrongs, A Secular Theory of the Origins of Rights (2004)
The same concepts can be found in the history of law and in the folowing as
well:
Benjamin F. Underwood: The Practical Separation of Church and State (1876)
http://candst.tripod.com/uwood.htm
[excerpt]
Further those who are in favor of uniting Church and State, after
declaring (what is so evident that none dispute it) that morality is
necessary to the State, coolly assure us that morality depends upon the
Christian religion, and without its light and authority virtue has no fixed
standard, no guarantee, no sanctions. Here we have the real difference
reduced to its last terms between many of those who would Christianize and
those who would secularize the government. Both parties hold to the
importance of good morals. But one believes there can be no true morality
except in connection with Christianity; while the other maintains that
morality is natural and secular, and does not depend for its existence, or
for the practice of its precepts, upon any religion whatever. Thus is
involved in this contest the true nature and the real basis of morality,
without an understanding of which there can hardly be an intelligent
appreciation of the merits of the controversy.
To us nothing is more clear than that morality depends not upon any
system of faith: it requires no miraculous evidence; it is independent of
theological dogma; no supernatural halo can heighten its beauty; no
ecclesiastical influence can strengthen its obligations; it is confined to
no one country, limited to no one age, restricted to no one form of faith,
the exclusive possession of no one class, sect, order, nation, or race of
men; it requires no written decalogue; it needs no single individual
authority; theology can not add to it, neither can it take from it. It has
its indestructible basis in the nature of man, as a feeling, thinking,
acting being, and in society as an aggregation of such beings, with the
manifold relations and the acknowledged rights and duties that spring
therefrom. Empires rise and perish; religions grow and decay; special forms
of civilization appear and give way to other types; but as, amid all the
mutations of human existence, the nature of man remains essentially the
same, and through all these changes the social condition everlastingly
persists, morality can never be without a foundation as broad and deep and
enduring as humanity itself. It changes not, but, as Cicero says, it is
"the same at Rome and at Athens, to-day and to-morrow; alone, eternal, and
invariable, it binds all nations and all times." Its highest standard is
the enlightened reason of man. The better man understands his nature, and
the more he is capable, by reason of intelligence and culture, of
comprehending the object of society and his relations thereto, the better
understanding will he have of the principles of morality.
Theologians could have no ideas of moral qualities, unless they had
discovered them in humanity. They are observed in man, and as in him they
are admired in contrast to the opposite qualities, they are ascribed to
God; and then theologians, having invested God with human qualities and
denied to him what they have borrowed from him with which to invest God
before they could form any conception of him as a moral being, most
ungratefully as well as inconsistently declare there can be no morality
independently of their theological system and book revelation. Of course,
it is nothing to ignore the fact that, before either the one or the other
appeared, society existed and nations flourished essentially the same as
they do to-day!
One would suppose, from the claims which are frequently made, that
there was no morality before the Christian era; that men were entirely
wanting in knowledge of what is right, and the disposition to do it; in
short, that all men were thieves, robbers, and murderers, before they heard
of Jesus Christ. I do not wonder that a system which through its
representatives gives currency to such a falsehood as this wants the aid of
civil power to enforce its teachings.
The morality of the advanced nations to-day is commonly called
Christian morality, but only with the same disregard of truth which is
implied in denying the existence of virtue and goodness before Christ and
outside of Christendom. The morality of this age does nor owe its existence
to any religion, to any book, to any historic character, however much or
little any one of these has influenced mankind. Our present conception of
morality has grown through many centuries of human experience, and exists
now only because by many mistakes and much suffering man has learned its
adaptedness to his wants. It is the result of the combined influence of our
natural character and education. To ascribe it to the dominant religion
were as absurd as to attribute the enlightenment of the ancient Creeks to
their mythology, or the enlightenment of the Saracens of Spain in the ninth
and tenth centuries, when darkness enveloped Christian Europe, to the
Koran. The fact is, with the advancement of the human mind, with the
discoveries in science and progress in morality, believers in all systems
of religion modify their views so as to adjust them to the new order of
things, always claiming, in ancient and in modern times, in Egypt, India,
Rome, Turkey, England, America, that they find authority for the new ideas
or reforms in their sacred books or religious systems. Soon they claim
these religions are entitled to the exclusive credit of having produced the
beneficent change which they have been powerless to prevent. Thus, while
the Bible teaches the subordination of woman in plain and unequivocal
language, sanctions and authorizes human slavery, and condemns to
unresisting submission to their condition the subjects of oppressive
governments, today in this country the Orthodox believers deny the plain
signification of the Bible on these points, and claim that it has been
effective in the destruction of all kinds of political and social bondage;
this, too, in spite of the fact, that its most zealous advocates, within
the memory of men who are yet young, were quoting its texts to show the
wickedness of the reforms which they now have the hardihood to claim as the
outgrowths of that book! Those portions of a religious system or book
revelation which are shown to be false, or which come to be repudiated by
the enlightened moral sense of the age, are either absolutely ignored or
twisted out of their obvious and natural meaning. By keeping in the
background the teachings of the Bible which have been outgrown, by giving
prominence to the precepts of morality which are attached to all systems of
religion, by stamping them all as Christian, although they were known and
practised before Christianity was ever heard of, theologians impress the
masses with the conviction that the Bible and the Christian religion are
the foundation of all virtue, and the only hope of the world. It then
presents the theological dogmas -- which have nothing whatever in common
with morality (such as that Jesus Christ is Ruler among Nations) --which
indeed have been the faith, the sincere, unquestioning faith of multitudes
of the most cruel and vicious men of all ages since they have been taught,
and demand their acceptance and incorporation in our Constitution from
purely moral considerations! Making all allowance for the fact that
transitional periods such as the present are always characterized by grave
inconsistencies which imply no dishonesty, it is difficult to believe that,
in these common representations regarding Christianity and morality, there
is not a good deal of disingenuousness and selfish disregard of the rights
of those who will not sustain them in the theological views they advocate.
.
|
|
|
|

|
Related Articles |
|
|