| Topic: |
Religions > Atheism |
| User: |
"Dana" |
| Date: |
18 Jun 2005 12:49:52 AM |
| Object: |
Why The Left Hates The Declaration Of Independence |
Why The Left Hates The Declaration Of Independence
By Hans Zeiger (07/06/03)
Since I was six years old, a poster of the Declaration of Independence has
hung on my bedroom wall. That's one reason why I turned out to be a young
conservative. But I don't suppose many Leftists have posters of the
Declaration of Independence hanging in their homes and workplaces. They've
managed to take it out of the schools too. It seems the Left would rather
burn it.
The Declaration is of equal importance to the Constitution, because it is
the founding creed of the United States. It is a classic doctrine of
American ideals that is the foundation of the Constitution and the American
way of life.
Most importantly, the Declaration of Independence is a spiritual statement
of dependence on God. For that reason and the fact that the rights
identified in the Declaration come from God, the Left wants to keep the
Declaration of Independence hidden from the view of elementary school
children and college students alike.
The New Jersey State Assembly passed a bill in 1999 to require school
children to recite the Declaration of Independence, and the Left sent out
forces to vigorously lobby against it in the state senate. The New Jersey
Education Association said the Declaration of Independence is "too
jingoistic" and the reference to God crosses the line between separation of
church and state. Eventually, the bill was defeated.
What was the proposed recitation? It happens to be the vision statement of
America: "We hold these truths to be self-evident: that all men are created
equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain inalienable
rights, that among these are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness,
that to secure these rights governments are instituted among men, deriving
their just powers from the consent of the governed."
If somehow the Declaration of Independence can be presented absent its core
principles, the Left will engage in historical revisionism with great
fervor. This is the task of Harvard law professor Alan Dershowitz in his
latest book America Declares Independence. Dershowitz spends most of his
time attacking conservatives for believing in the essential Declaration of
Independence. "It should come as no surprise that [the Declaration has] been
wrenched out of context by partisan pleaders to promote parochial causes,"
he writes.
Unfortunately for the revisionist Mr. Dershowitz, the pure and unaltered
Declaration is not a document lacking in honest words and comprehensive
discussion of context. The British crown is thoroughly taken to task and the
practical reasoning for doing so is expounded in great detail. And if it's
the simple truths of the Declaration that Mr. Dershowitz is so disturbed by,
he should remember that they don't need context. They're "self-evident."
The Declaration of Independence is not a fresh abridged translation courtesy
of the religious right as Dershowitz contends. The original parchment leaves
no stone unturned in its quest to summarize the truth about government and
natural rights. Besides identifying the source of rights (God), the
investiture of rights (individuals), and the definition of a legitimate
government (consent of the governed), the Declaration lists the three things
that a free people must be willing to sacrifice to preserve their liberty.
The Founders wrote, "We mutually pledge to each other our lives, fortunes,
and sacred honor."
So why is the Left so virulently intolerant of the Declaration of
Independence? Because it presents a political and philosophical worldview
entirely inconsistent with the liberal view that rights come from the
government or Mother Earth, that rights are invested in groups and classes
of people, and that preserving freedom is a task that can be met through the
effortless consumption of rights.
The Left says that we must move beyond the perspectives of slave-owning
white males known as the Founding Fathers, that we must cling to the
prospects of change and moral relativism. It just so happens that the sacred
words of the Founding Fathers were the summation of freedom for millions of
19th century southern slaves who rejoiced in their emancipation that all
human beings "are created equal."
The Left will continue to distort, revise, and shred the Declaration of
Independence as long as we allow them to do so.
President Calvin Coolidge wouldn't allow the Left to burn the Declaration
when he delivered a 4th of July oration 77 years ago. In it, he summed up
the disparity between liberalism and the Declaration of Independence.
"If all men are created equal, that is final. If they are endowed with
inalienable rights, that is final. No advance, no progress can be made
beyond these propositions. If anyone wishes to deny their truth or their
soundness, the only direction in which he can proceed historically is not
forward, but backward toward the time when there was no equality, no rights
of the individual, no rule of the people. Those who wish to proceed in that
direction cannot lay claim to progress. They are reactionary. Their ideas
are not more modern, but more ancient than those of the Revolutionary
Fathers."
Let's never forget that we're the real progressives when we believe in the
Declaration of Independence.
--
I read the Prize Cases to stand for the proposition
that the President has independent authority to repel
aggressive acts by third parties even without specific
congressional authorization, and courts may not review
the level of force selected.
Campbell v. Clinton, 203 F.3d 19, 27 (D.C. Cir. 2000) (Silberman,
J., concurring)
.
|
|
| User: "Enkidu the Atheist" |
|
| Title: Re: Why The Left Hates The Declaration Of Independence |
18 Jun 2005 02:18:14 AM |
|
|
"Dana" <whoya@whoya.com> wrote in
news:11b6rpu7n1i3c5d@corp.supernews.com:
Since I was six years old, a poster of the Declaration of Independence
has hung on my bedroom wall. That's one reason why I turned out to be
a young conservative. But I don't suppose many Leftists have posters
of the Declaration of Independence hanging in their homes and
workplaces. They've managed to take it out of the schools too. It
seems the Left would rather burn it.
The Declaration is of equal importance to the Constitution, because it
is the founding creed of the United States. It is a classic doctrine
of American ideals that is the foundation of the Constitution and the
American way of life.
Bzzzzztt! Wrong! The DoI in not the law of the land. In fact, there was
a different government between the DoI and the current one based on the
Constitution. Can you name it? Who was its president?
--
Enkidu AA#2165
EAC Chaplin and ordained minister,
ULC, Modesto, CA
Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.
-- Carl Sagan
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "The other Donald" |
|
| Title: Re: Why The Left Hates The Declaration Of Independence |
18 Jun 2005 01:10:58 AM |
|
|
"Dana" <whoya@whoya.com> wrote in message
news:11b6rpu7n1i3c5d@corp.supernews.com...
Why The Left Hates The Declaration Of Independence
By Hans Zeiger (07/06/03)
Since I was six years old, a poster of the Declaration of Independence has
hung on my bedroom wall. That's one reason why I turned out to be a young
conservative. But I don't suppose many Leftists have posters of the
Declaration of Independence hanging in their homes and workplaces. They've
managed to take it out of the schools too. It seems the Left would rather
burn it.
The Declaration is of equal importance to the Constitution, because it is
the founding creed of the United States. It is a classic doctrine of
American ideals that is the foundation of the Constitution and the
American
way of life.
Wrong, fuckstick.
It was a "Dear John" letter to King George III basically telling him to kiss
our collective asses.
Are you cocksuckers even capable of recognizing the truth, let alone
actually stating it?
--
-Donald in Austin
AA #2104
Apatriot #22
Atheist FF/EMT
.....and ordained minister
Stork pin recipient: May 1, 2003 -Madelyn
.
|
|
|
| User: "Christopher A. Lee" |
|
| Title: Re: Why The Left Hates The Declaration Of Independence |
18 Jun 2005 01:29:23 AM |
|
|
On Sat, 18 Jun 2005 01:10:58 GMT, "The other Donald"
<the_donald_13@yahooX.com> wrote:
"Dana" <whoya@whoya.com> wrote in message
news:11b6rpu7n1i3c5d@corp.supernews.com...
Why The Left Hates The Declaration Of Independence
By Hans Zeiger (07/06/03)
Since I was six years old, a poster of the Declaration of Independence has
hung on my bedroom wall. That's one reason why I turned out to be a young
conservative. But I don't suppose many Leftists have posters of the
Declaration of Independence hanging in their homes and workplaces. They've
managed to take it out of the schools too. It seems the Left would rather
burn it.
The Declaration is of equal importance to the Constitution, because it is
the founding creed of the United States. It is a classic doctrine of
American ideals that is the foundation of the Constitution and the
American
way of life.
Wrong, fuckstick.
It was a "Dear John" letter to King George III basically telling him to kiss
our collective asses.
After independence they remained individual states for several years,
until they later formed a Union.
Are you cocksuckers even capable of recognizing the truth, let alone
actually stating it?
Don't hold your breath.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: Why The Left Hates The Declaration Of Independence |
18 Jun 2005 01:56:49 AM |
|
|
On Sat, 18 Jun 2005 01:10:58 GMT, "The other Donald"
<the_donald_13@yahooX.com> wrote:
The Declaration is of equal importance to the Constitution, because it is
the founding creed of the United States. It is a classic doctrine of
American ideals that is the foundation of the Constitution and the
American
way of life.
Wrong, fuckstick.
Poor Buttmaster wasn't smart enough to know that posting/answering sex
ads in News Groups was archived in DejaNews
Him Being "wrong" is normal
===============================================================================
After denying he wrote sex ads, and claimed "forgeries", Dana wrote:
On Thu, 25 May 2000 09:18:43 GMT, "Dana" <raff1@home.com> wrote:
What even funnier is the original post was actually pretty funny, but I
guess rosie has no sense of humor, and is quite evident that he can be
called a net stalker, as every post I make he has to reply with a copy of
the ads I place in a personal group. Which of course shows his hypocracy,
as this is the same stuff he accuses the Scafie funded right wing conspiracy
of doing.
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Michelle Malkin" |
|
| Title: Re: Why The Left Hates The Declaration Of Independence |
18 Jun 2005 07:03:11 AM |
|
|
"Dana" <whoya@whoya.com> wrote in message
news:11b6rpu7n1i3c5d@corp.supernews.com...
Why The Left Hates The Declaration Of Independence
By Hans Zeiger (07/06/03)
You are full of it. Why would anyone want a bunch of
modern children to recite a list of complaints against a
British king who died over 200 years ago? The paper
may be on your wall, but I doubt that you ever read it.
By the way, the word creator was chosen quote
deliberately. Jefferson was a deist, not a Christian.
Oh, ***** (you'll like that, won't you, Dana?) I should have
realised who posted this peace of drek. It's our old
copraphage troll, Dana Raffaniello.
Since I was six years old, a poster of the Declaration of Independence has
hung on my bedroom wall. That's one reason why I turned out to be a young
conservative. But I don't suppose many Leftists have posters of the
Declaration of Independence hanging in their homes and workplaces. They've
managed to take it out of the schools too. It seems the Left would rather
burn it.
The Declaration is of equal importance to the Constitution, because it is
the founding creed of the United States. It is a classic doctrine of
American ideals that is the foundation of the Constitution and the
American
way of life.
Most importantly, the Declaration of Independence is a spiritual statement
of dependence on God. For that reason and the fact that the rights
identified in the Declaration come from God, the Left wants to keep the
Declaration of Independence hidden from the view of elementary school
children and college students alike.
The New Jersey State Assembly passed a bill in 1999 to require school
children to recite the Declaration of Independence, and the Left sent out
forces to vigorously lobby against it in the state senate. The New Jersey
Education Association said the Declaration of Independence is "too
jingoistic" and the reference to God crosses the line between separation
of
church and state. Eventually, the bill was defeated.
What was the proposed recitation? It happens to be the vision statement of
America: "We hold these truths to be self-evident: that all men are
created
equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain inalienable
rights, that among these are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness,
that to secure these rights governments are instituted among men, deriving
their just powers from the consent of the governed."
If somehow the Declaration of Independence can be presented absent its
core
principles, the Left will engage in historical revisionism with great
fervor. This is the task of Harvard law professor Alan Dershowitz in his
latest book America Declares Independence. Dershowitz spends most of his
time attacking conservatives for believing in the essential Declaration of
Independence. "It should come as no surprise that [the Declaration has]
been
wrenched out of context by partisan pleaders to promote parochial causes,"
he writes.
Unfortunately for the revisionist Mr. Dershowitz, the pure and unaltered
Declaration is not a document lacking in honest words and comprehensive
discussion of context. The British crown is thoroughly taken to task and
the
practical reasoning for doing so is expounded in great detail. And if it's
the simple truths of the Declaration that Mr. Dershowitz is so disturbed
by,
he should remember that they don't need context. They're "self-evident."
The Declaration of Independence is not a fresh abridged translation
courtesy
of the religious right as Dershowitz contends. The original parchment
leaves
no stone unturned in its quest to summarize the truth about government and
natural rights. Besides identifying the source of rights (God), the
investiture of rights (individuals), and the definition of a legitimate
government (consent of the governed), the Declaration lists the three
things
that a free people must be willing to sacrifice to preserve their liberty.
The Founders wrote, "We mutually pledge to each other our lives, fortunes,
and sacred honor."
So why is the Left so virulently intolerant of the Declaration of
Independence? Because it presents a political and philosophical worldview
entirely inconsistent with the liberal view that rights come from the
government or Mother Earth, that rights are invested in groups and classes
of people, and that preserving freedom is a task that can be met through
the
effortless consumption of rights.
The Left says that we must move beyond the perspectives of slave-owning
white males known as the Founding Fathers, that we must cling to the
prospects of change and moral relativism. It just so happens that the
sacred
words of the Founding Fathers were the summation of freedom for millions
of
19th century southern slaves who rejoiced in their emancipation that all
human beings "are created equal."
The Left will continue to distort, revise, and shred the Declaration of
Independence as long as we allow them to do so.
President Calvin Coolidge wouldn't allow the Left to burn the Declaration
when he delivered a 4th of July oration 77 years ago. In it, he summed up
the disparity between liberalism and the Declaration of Independence.
"If all men are created equal, that is final. If they are endowed with
inalienable rights, that is final. No advance, no progress can be made
beyond these propositions. If anyone wishes to deny their truth or their
soundness, the only direction in which he can proceed historically is not
forward, but backward toward the time when there was no equality, no
rights
of the individual, no rule of the people. Those who wish to proceed in
that
direction cannot lay claim to progress. They are reactionary. Their ideas
are not more modern, but more ancient than those of the Revolutionary
Fathers."
Let's never forget that we're the real progressives when we believe in the
Declaration of Independence.
--
I read the Prize Cases to stand for the proposition
that the President has independent authority to repel
aggressive acts by third parties even without specific
congressional authorization, and courts may not review
the level of force selected.
Campbell v. Clinton, 203 F.3d 19, 27 (D.C. Cir. 2000) (Silberman,
J., concurring)
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: Why The Left Hates The Declaration Of Independence |
19 Jun 2005 05:12:45 PM |
|
|
Dana wrote:
The Declaration is of equal importance to the Constitution, because it is
the founding creed of the United States. [...]
Which shows that this guy is an ignorant about law and liberty as you
are, Dana.
The DoI means very little. It was a document of intent that lost its
significance in 1783.
The Constitution, OTOH, is what gives our nation both its purpose
and structure. It codified our rights and liberties. It put limits on
the government. It is everything for a patriot.
But not to you, Dana. You prefer the DoI and the flag - two symbols
with no meaning if it wasn't for the Constitution.
Which is just like your posts here; big on accusation and small on
meaning.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Dana" |
|
| Title: Re: Why The Left Hates The Declaration Of Independence |
19 Jun 2005 05:56:31 PM |
|
|
<gjohns01@eudoramail.com> wrote in message
news:1119201165.894846.63530@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com...
Dana wrote:
The Declaration is of equal importance to the Constitution, because it
is
the founding creed of the United States. [...]
Which shows that this guy is an ignorant about law and liberty
Seems that would be you. The DOI was our separation from England and the
starting point of when what became the U.S. was founded.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Curly Surmudgeon" |
|
| Title: Re: Why People Hate Dana |
19 Jun 2005 07:41:02 PM |
|
|
On Sun, 19 Jun 2005 09:56:31 -0800, Dana wrote:
-----------snip------------
Your constant attack mode precludes anyone from reading your bigotry and
hatred. Misrepresenting the principles of others gains your position
nothing but revulsion.
If you want people to listen to your position then present your case
rationally without headers as above.
-- Regards, Curly
------------------------------------------------------------------------
http://curlysurmudgeon.com/weird/political/bushire.jpeg
------------------------------------------------------------------------
.
|
|
|
| User: "Dana" |
|
| Title: Re: Why People Hate Dana |
19 Jun 2005 11:26:59 PM |
|
|
"Curly Surmudgeon" <curly@curlysurmudgeon.com> wrote in message
news:11bbia4jgfv4pbd@corp.supernews.com...
On Sun, 19 Jun 2005 09:56:31 -0800, Dana wrote:
-----------snip------------
Your constant attack mode
The only people here who are in constant attack mode, are people like you
and other democrats who support terrorists, and hate Bush and America.
Face it curly, numerous people have asked you to back up your petty
allegations about Bush and Gitmo, and all you do is run away.
.
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: Why People Hate Dana |
20 Jun 2005 11:20:32 PM |
|
|
On Sun, 19 Jun 2005 15:26:59 -0800, "Dana" <whoya@whoya.com> wrote:
"Curly Surmudgeon" <curly@curlysurmudgeon.com> wrote in message
news:11bbia4jgfv4pbd@corp.supernews.com...
On Sun, 19 Jun 2005 09:56:31 -0800, Dana wrote:
-----------snip------------
Your constant attack mode
The only people here who are in constant attack mode, are people like you
and other democrats who support terrorists, and hate Bush and America.
There will never be a political party that could funnel as much into a
smear and hatred as the CPAC/ Scaife/GOP machine that's operated since
the early 80's
The only dumb cocksuckers that dont know it, are idiots like
you----covered with *****.
------------------------------------------------------
houston toilet for ladies
</groups?q=author:danaraffaniello%40worldnet.
att.net&start=210&hl=en&lr=&ie=UT>F-8&selm=63j
060%24j0j%40bgtnsc03.worldnet.att.net&rnum=225>
use me as your toilet. will be toilet for female parties.
can also be used as a rug, so you can walk on me.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Lone Ranger" |
|
| Title: Re: Why People Hate Dana |
30 Jun 2005 07:16:49 PM |
|
|
On Sun, 19 Jun 2005 15:26:59 -0800, "Dana" <whoya@whoya.com> wrote:
The only people here who are in constant attack mode, are people like you
and other democrats who support terrorists, and hate Bush and America.
You are a troll, right? The alternative would be too fucking
depressing.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/06/06/AR2005060601651.html
One-quarter of all Americans met the criteria for having a mental
illness within the past year, and fully a quarter of those had a
"serious" disorder that significantly disrupted their ability to
function day to day, according to the largest and most detailed survey
of the nation's mental health, published yesterday.
--
Hi-Yo, Silver! Away!
--
The Curse of Tecumseh
http://www.snopes.com/history/american/curse.htm
.
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: Why People Hate Dana |
30 Jun 2005 08:32:45 PM |
|
|
On Thu, 30 Jun 2005 21:16:49 +0200, Lone Ranger
<snowball2002@bigfoot.com.spamalamadingdong> wrote:
On Sun, 19 Jun 2005 15:26:59 -0800, "Dana" <whoya@whoya.com> wrote:
The only people here who are in constant attack mode, are people like you
and other democrats who support terrorists, and hate Bush and America.
Here's why people are made sick by Dana
------------------------------------------------------
use me as your toilet. will be toilet for female parties.
can also be used as a rug, so you can walk on me.
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Curly Surmudgeon" |
|
| Title: Re: Why People Hate Dana |
20 Jun 2005 12:44:08 AM |
|
|
On Sun, 19 Jun 2005 15:26:59 -0800, Dana wrote:
"Curly Surmudgeon" <curly@curlysurmudgeon.com> wrote in message
news:11bbia4jgfv4pbd@corp.supernews.com...
On Sun, 19 Jun 2005 09:56:31 -0800, Dana wrote:
-----------snip------------
Your constant attack mode
The only people here who are in constant attack mode, are people like you
and other democrats who support terrorists, and hate Bush and America.
I begin to feel like Reagan, "There you go again..."
You fabricate stories about others, convince yourself, then build a house
of cards based upon those assumptions. Do you not see how this inevitably
leads to erroneous conclusions?
"I am not now a Democrat nor have I ever been." Has this not been obvious?
Face it curly, numerous people have asked you to back up your petty
allegations about Bush and Gitmo, and all you do is run away.
Only you and Information Junkie. Both of which deny evidence that has
already been made available. That's your problem not mine. I do not
dance to either of your drumbeats. Especially with your continued
hostility and beloved "hatred".
Do you put a noun on your calendar every day to hate?
-- Regards, Curly
------------------------------------------------------------------------
http://curlysurmudgeon.com/weird/political/bushire.jpeg
------------------------------------------------------------------------
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: Why People Hate Dana |
20 Jun 2005 11:18:57 PM |
|
|
On Sun, 19 Jun 2005 12:41:02 -0700, Curly Surmudgeon
<curly@curlysurmudgeon.com> wrote:
On Sun, 19 Jun 2005 09:56:31 -0800, Dana wrote:
-----------snip------------
Your constant attack mode precludes anyone from reading your bigotry and
hatred.
Maybe some of that feces he likes to be covered with has addled his
lone bat?
------------------------------------------------------
houston toilet for ladies
</groups?q=author:danaraffaniello%40worldnet.
att.net&start=210&hl=en&lr=&ie=UT>F-8&selm=63j
060%24j0j%40bgtnsc03.worldnet.att.net&rnum=225>
use me as your toilet. will be toilet for female parties.
can also be used as a rug, so you can walk on me.
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Mike Painter" |
|
| Title: Re: Why The Left Hates The Declaration Of Independence |
19 Jun 2005 06:08:48 PM |
|
|
wrote:
Dana wrote:
The Declaration is of equal importance to the Constitution, because
it is the founding creed of the United States. [...]
Which shows that this guy is an ignorant about law and liberty as you
are, Dana.
The DoI means very little. It was a document of intent that lost its
significance in 1783.
The Constitution, OTOH, is what gives our nation both its purpose
and structure. It codified our rights and liberties. It put limits on
the government. It is everything for a patriot.
But not to you, Dana. You prefer the DoI and the flag - two symbols
with no meaning if it wasn't for the Constitution.
Which is just like your posts here; big on accusation and small on
meaning.
I'm not sure it's not significent now:
"...He has affected to render the Military independent of and superior to
the Civil power.
He has combined with others to subject us to a jurisdiction foreign to our
constitution and unacknowledged by our laws; giving his Assent to their Acts
of pretended Legislation:
For Quartering large bodies of armed troops among us:
For protecting them, by a mock Trial, from punishment for any Murders which
they should commit on the Inhabitants of these States:
....
For depriving us, in many cases, of the benefits of Trial by Jury:
For transporting us beyond Seas to be tried for pretended offences:
For abolishing the free System of English Laws in a neighbouring Province,
establishing therein an Arbitrary government, and enlarging its Boundaries
so as to render it at once an example and fit instrument for introducing the
same absolute rule into these Colonies:
For taking away our Charters, abolishing our most valuable Laws, and
altering fundamentally the Forms of our Governments:
For suspending our own Legislatures, and declaring themselves invested with
power to legislate for us in all cases whatsoever. "
If it bothered us then why are we surprised that it bothers Iraq now?
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: Why The Left Hates The Declaration Of Independence |
18 Jun 2005 06:45:08 AM |
|
|
Dana wrote:
Why The Left Hates The Declaration Of Independence
By Hans Zeiger (07/06/03)
Since I was six years old, a poster of the Declaration of Independence has
hung on my bedroom wall. That's one reason why I turned out to be a young
conservative. But I don't suppose many Leftists have posters of the
Declaration of Independence hanging in their homes and workplaces. They've
managed to take it out of the schools too. It seems the Left would rather
burn it.
The Declaration is of equal importance to the Constitution, because it is
the founding creed of the United States. It is a classic doctrine of
American ideals that is the foundation of the Constitution and the American
way of life.
Most importantly, the Declaration of Independence is a spiritual statement
of dependence on God. For that reason and the fact that the rights
identified in the Declaration come from God, the Left wants to keep the
Declaration of Independence hidden from the view of elementary school
children and college students alike.
The "Creator" was a rhetorical device, which could mean anything from a
vengeful Yahweh to a Deist creator to Mother Nature. What it did *not
mean was "the king of England". Until this time, modern countries
understood the rights of its subjects to be those which were granted by
the throne. Our founding fathers were making it clear that humans had
inherent rights which were not dependent on a tyrant - however
benevolent any particular one might be - granting them.
The New Jersey State Assembly passed a bill in 1999 to require school
children to recite the Declaration of Independence, and the Left sent out
forces to vigorously lobby against it in the state senate. The New Jersey
Education Association said the Declaration of Independence is "too
jingoistic" and the reference to God crosses the line between separation of
church and state. Eventually, the bill was defeated.
What was the proposed recitation? It happens to be the vision statement of
America: "We hold these truths to be self-evident: that all men are created
equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain inalienable
rights, that among these are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness,
that to secure these rights governments are instituted among men, deriving
their just powers from the consent of the governed."
If somehow the Declaration of Independence can be presented absent its core
principles, the Left will engage in historical revisionism with great
fervor. This is the task of Harvard law professor Alan Dershowitz in his
latest book America Declares Independence. Dershowitz spends most of his
time attacking conservatives for believing in the essential Declaration of
Independence. "It should come as no surprise that [the Declaration has] been
wrenched out of context by partisan pleaders to promote parochial causes,"
he writes.
Sounds more like he takes them to task for distorting and cheapening
it.
Unfortunately for the revisionist Mr. Dershowitz, the pure and unaltered
Declaration is not a document lacking in honest words and comprehensive
discussion of context. The British crown is thoroughly taken to task and the
practical reasoning for doing so is expounded in great detail. And if it's
the simple truths of the Declaration that Mr. Dershowitz is so disturbed by,
he should remember that they don't need context. They're "self-evident."
The list of grievances was spelled out so that other educated people
would understand why we were taking such a radical step. They were *not
asking for permission, (as President Bush accused Kerry when he wanted
to justify our war to Europe) but simply presenting their case so that
we would not be thought mindless savages.
Do you have a quote in which Dershowitz says he is perurbed by the
Declaration's simple truths?
The Declaration of Independence is not a fresh abridged translation courtesy
of the religious right as Dershowitz contends. The original parchment leaves
no stone unturned in its quest to summarize the truth about government and
natural rights. Besides identifying the source of rights (God), the
investiture of rights (individuals), and the definition of a legitimate
government (consent of the governed), the Declaration lists the three things
that a free people must be willing to sacrifice to preserve their liberty.
The Founders wrote, "We mutually pledge to each other our lives, fortunes,
and sacred honor."
So why is the Left so virulently intolerant of the Declaration of
Independence? Because it presents a political and philosophical worldview
entirely inconsistent with the liberal view that rights come from the
government or Mother Earth, that rights are invested in groups and classes
of people, and that preserving freedom is a task that can be met through the
effortless consumption of rights.
My daughter always carries a copy of the US Constitution with her. She
asked for a new one to take to university with her this fall; the old
one is rather worn at this point. She doesn't carry the Declaration.
While it is historically important, it is not the actual law of the
land.
When a cop saw her reading it at a bus stop, he demanded to know what
she was doing with it. He wanted her to justify possessing a copy.
This *was shortly after Sept 11, and I suppose he was only worried
about terrorists...
The Left says that we must move beyond the perspectives of slave-owning
white males known as the Founding Fathers, that we must cling to the
prospects of change and moral relativism. It just so happens that the sacred
words of the Founding Fathers were the summation of freedom for millions of
19th century southern slaves who rejoiced in their emancipation that all
human beings "are created equal."
Eh? The southern slaves were not freed when the Declaration was
published. I doubt if they heard of it. If they had, they probably
thought bitterly of its irony. Are you saying that we *shouldn't move
past slave owning, no suffrage for women, and property requirements for
the right to vote?
BTW, the only people I've ever heard talk about "moral relativism" are
Ditto Heads and neocon apologists. Do you have any cites for anyone who
claims that "we must cling to moral relativism"? The morality of the
religious right is, of course, the morality of the subject who avows
only a desire to carry out the king's wishes. Seems rather primitive to
me.
The Left will continue to distort, revise, and shred the Declaration of
Independence as long as we allow them to do so.
President Calvin Coolidge wouldn't allow the Left to burn the Declaration
when he delivered a 4th of July oration 77 years ago. In it, he summed up
the disparity between liberalism and the Declaration of Independence.
"If all men are created equal, that is final. If they are endowed with
inalienable rights, that is final. No advance, no progress can be made
beyond these propositions. If anyone wishes to deny their truth or their
soundness, the only direction in which he can proceed historically is not
forward, but backward toward the time when there was no equality, no rights
of the individual, no rule of the people. Those who wish to proceed in that
direction cannot lay claim to progress. They are reactionary. Their ideas
are not more modern, but more ancient than those of the Revolutionary
Fathers."
Let's never forget that we're the real progressives when we believe in the
Declaration of Independence.
--
I read the Prize Cases to stand for the proposition
that the President has independent authority to repel
aggressive acts by third parties even without specific
congressional authorization, and courts may not review
the level of force selected.
Campbell v. Clinton, 203 F.3d 19, 27 (D.C. Cir. 2000) (Silberman,
J., concurring)
<Aside to others>
Why did't I get the liberal newsletters telling me to hate the
Declaration? Why do I always have to hear the new directives from the
right?
Kermit
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Pastor Ferdinna" |
|
| Title: Re: Why The Left Hates The Declaration Of Independence |
18 Jun 2005 01:51:48 AM |
|
|
Dana wrote:
Why The Left Hates The Declaration Of Independence
By Hans Zeiger (07/06/03)
The headline is enough to demonstrate that the writer is being totally
disingenuous. The average God fearing American, upon being shown the
Declaration of Independence, responds thus:
"We won't ever tolerate that kind of car-mew-nizzum here!".
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "D-word" |
|
| Title: Re: Why The Left Hates The Declaration Of Independence |
30 Jun 2005 08:49:46 PM |
|
|
Dana wrote:
Why The Left Hates The Declaration Of Independence
By Hans Zeiger (07/06/03)
Besides identifying the source of rights (God), the
investiture of rights (individuals), and the definition of a legitimate
government (consent of the governed), the Declaration lists the three things
that a free people must be willing to sacrifice to preserve their liberty.
The Founders wrote, "We mutually pledge to each other our lives, fortunes,
and sacred honor."
The War of Independence was about money, about wealth, about taxes on
tobacco, and other goods, not human rights. They pledged their
"fortunes." Who these days has a "fortune"? How did one acquire a
fortune, by upholding (and fighting for) the civil rights of the slaves
that farmed their land? Talk about revisionist history.
So why is the Left so virulently intolerant of the Declaration of
Independence? Because it presents a political and philosophical worldview
entirely inconsistent with the liberal view that rights come from the
government or Mother Earth, that rights are invested in groups and classes
of people, and that preserving freedom is a task that can be met through the
effortless consumption of rights.
Rights are innately human. They don't come from government. That is a
straw man of the right. Government protects those rights, just as they
allow right or left to practice religion free from oppression -- and
they don't collect taxes for your right to petition the government
either.
The Left says that we must move beyond the perspectives of slave-owning
white males known as the Founding Fathers, that we must cling to the
prospects of change and moral relativism. It just so happens that the sacred
words of the Founding Fathers were the summation of freedom for millions of
19th century southern slaves who rejoiced in their emancipation that all
human beings "are created equal."
Again, talk about revisionist history. The Declaration of Independence
didn't free slaves, it freed America from the oppression of British
Imperialism. Individual state Constitutions gradually began to free
slaves. In the South it was out of necessity, not human rights. The
slaves were old and sick and costly to maintain. They were freed in VA
and in the south to save money. The crafters of the Declaration of
Independence (Hamilton, Washington, Jefferson, etc.) were some of the
wealthiest slave owners of the original Colonies.
---
"1759
George Washington, having gained 17,000 acres of farmland and 286
slaves from his new wife, Martha Dandridge Custis (these added to his
own 30 slaves), harvests his first tobacco crop. The British market is
unimpressed with its quality, and by 1761, Washington is deeply in
debt.
1776 Declaration of Independence from Britain. Fifty five signers,
Fifty two of whom were known to be Master Masons. (Kenton N Harper,
History of the Grand Lodge and of Freemasonry in the District of
Columbia. Washington, DC 1911)
"How is it," asked Samuel Johnson, "that we hear the loudest yelps for
liberty among the drivers of Negroes?" The British author was only one
of many Europeans who thought it strange that a nation run by slave
owners should be so noisily demanding its own freedom.
1777
Vermont became the first U.S. territory to abolish slavery
(Vermont native here)
1779
Thomas Jefferson, A Bill Concerning Slaves enacted by the Virginia
General Assembly by Thomas Jefferson, "If any white woman shall have a
child by a Negro or mulatto, she and her child shall depart the
commonwealth within one year thereafter. If they fail so to do, the
woman shall be out of the protection of the laws, and the child shall
be bound out by the Aldermen of the county, in like manner as poor
orphans are by law directed to be, and within one year after its term
of service expired shall depart the commonwealth, or on failure so to
do, shall be out of the protection of the laws. No slave shall go from
the tenements of his master, or other person with whom he lives,
without a pass, or some letter or token whereby it may appear that he
is proceeding by authority from his master, employer, or overseer: If
he does, it shall be lawful for any person to apprehend and carry him
before a Justice of the Peace, to be by his order punished with
stripes, or not, in his discretion."
1780
By the Constitution of 1780 the Commonwealth of Massachusetts declared
that persons of color, [**413] descended from African slaves, were by
that Constitution made citizens of the State; and such of them as have
had the necessary qualifications, have held and exercised the elective
franchise, as citizens, from that time to the present. [Constitution of
MASSACHUSETTS frees MA slaves]
1782
George Washington is the major slave owner in Fairfax County Virginia
that year with 188 slaves, followed by George Mason with 128 slaves;
William Fitzhugh with 122 slaves Penelope French and B Dulany with 102
slaves; Thomas Fitzhugh with 91 slaves; Philip Lee with 82 slaves;
Alexander Henderson with 72 slaves: Elenor Custis with 65 slaves; and
John Carlyle with 49 slaves. (Fairfax County, Virginia a History.
Fairfax County Board of Supervisors, Fairfax, Virginia, 1978 p 35)
1782
The Virginia legislature authorizes manumission of slaves as the
"peculiar institution" begins to die out in some parts of the South.
Some 10,000 Virginia slaves will be freed in the next 8 years largely
because they are too old, ill, or costly for their masters to maintain.
http://www.innercity.org/holt/slavechron.html
---
The Left will continue to distort, revise, and shred the Declaration of
Independence as long as we allow them to do so.
The religious right loves to blame the "left" for their anti-religious
views, while really the argument they rail against is fact, objectivity
and logic, not a partisan or political stance. They claim we revise
history, while it is only their argument that crumbles under the weight
of evidence, not ours.
The Declaration of Independence was not a bill of human rights, it was
a statement of financial and political autonomy. The landowners were
the people who's rights were being protected by the Declaration of
Independence, not "all people." Slaves had no rights. They no longer
wished to be under British rule, the rest was flowery rhetoric added to
glorify their cause.
Let's never forget that we're the real progressives when we believe in the
Declaration of Independence.
Ahh yes, the right-wing spin engine is now going to try to appropriate
the term "progressive" for "conservative" use. How ironic, how
oxymoronic. To be a "real" progressive, what one must revise is
history, apparently.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Don Kresch" |
|
| Title: Re: Why The Left Hates The Declaration Of Independence |
18 Jun 2005 02:43:25 AM |
|
|
In alt.atheism On Fri, 17 Jun 2005 16:49:52 -0800, "Dana"
<whoya@whoya.com> let us all know that:
Why The Left Hates The Declaration Of Independence
By Hans Zeiger (07/06/03)
Since I was six years old, a poster of the Declaration of Independence has
hung on my bedroom wall. That's one reason why I turned out to be a young
conservative. But I don't suppose many Leftists have posters of the
Declaration of Independence hanging in their homes and workplaces. They've
managed to take it out of the schools too. It seems the Left would rather
burn it.
The Declaration is of equal importance to the Constitution, because it is
the founding creed of the United States. It is a classic doctrine of
American ideals that is the foundation of the Constitution and the American
way of life.
Most importantly, the Declaration of Independence is a spiritual statement
of dependence on God.
But not the xer god. It's clearly the deistic god.
But religious reich assholes don't know that.
Don
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Lars Eighner" |
|
| Title: Re: Why The Left Hates The Declaration Of Independence |
18 Jun 2005 01:10:25 AM |
|
|
In our last episode,
<11b6rpu7n1i3c5d@corp.supernews.com>,
the lovely and talented Dana
broadcast on alt.atheism:
Why The Left Hates The Declaration Of Independence
By Hans Zeiger (07/06/03)
Since I was six years old, a poster of the Declaration of Independence has
hung on my bedroom wall. That's one reason why I turned out to be a young
conservative. But I don't suppose many Leftists have posters of the
Declaration of Independence hanging in their homes and workplaces. They've
managed to take it out of the schools too. It seems the Left would rather
burn it.
The Declaration is of equal importance to the Constitution,
No, it isn't.
because it is
the founding creed of the United States.
Liar. Slavery was the founding creed of the United States.
It is a classic doctrine of
American ideals that is the foundation of the Constitution and the American
way of life.
Most importantly, the Declaration of Independence is a spiritual statement
of dependence on God.
*****.
The authors and signers obviously did not believe that all men
are created equal because they were SLAVE owners and those who
were willing to consort with SLAVE owners.
They did not believe there was an unalienable right to liberty,
because they held slaves or allowed others to.
Why should any of their statements about god(s) be any more
believable?
What was the proposed recitation? It happens to be the vision statement of
America: "We hold these truths to be self-evident: that all men are created
equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain inalienable
rights, that among these are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness,
that to secure these rights governments are instituted among men, deriving
their just powers from the consent of the governed."
Which was an obvious lie. The "we" was the author and signers
of the Declaration, and the facts make it clear they did not
believe that at all. Did even one of the signers immediately
free his slaves when he signed the document? No. Not one. It
was a lie. There is not good reason school children should be
asked to repeat one of histories biggest lies.
If somehow the Declaration of Independence can be presented absent its core
principles,
The core principle of the Declaration of Independence was the
perpetuation of SLAVERY.
--
Lars Eighner http://www.larseighner.com/
Non-violence leads to the highest ethics, which is the goal of all evolution.
- Thomas Edison
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: Why The Left Hates The Declaration Of Independence |
18 Jun 2005 01:55:07 AM |
|
|
On Fri, 17 Jun 2005 16:47:17 -0800, "Dana" <whoya@whoya.com> wrote:
------------------------------------------------------
houston toilet for ladies
</groups?q=author:danaraffaniello%40worldnet.
att.net&start=210&hl=en&lr=&ie=UT>F-8&selm=63j
060%24j0j%40bgtnsc03.worldnet.att.net&rnum=225>
use me as your toilet. will be toilet for female parties.
can also be used as a rug, so you can walk on me.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Douglas Berry" |
|
| Title: Re: Why The Left Hates The Declaration Of Independence |
18 Jun 2005 03:05:36 AM |
|
|
On Fri, 17 Jun 2005 16:49:52 -0800, "Dana" <whoya@whoya.com> drained
his beer, leaned back in the alt.atheism beanbag and drunkenly
proclaimed the following
Why The Left Hates The Declaration Of Independence
By Hans Zeiger (07/06/03)
Since I was six years old, a poster of the Declaration of Independence has
hung on my bedroom wall. That's one reason why I turned out to be a young
conservative. But I don't suppose many Leftists have posters of the
Declaration of Independence hanging in their homes and workplaces. They've
managed to take it out of the schools too. It seems the Left would rather
burn it.
The Declaration is of equal importance to the Constitution,
No, it isn't. The Declaration is just that, a declaration that the
thirteen colonies were no longer beholden to England. It had no legal
force, that came with the Treaty of Paris.
The Constitution is the basis of law for our nation.
because it is
the founding creed of the United States. It is a classic doctrine of
American ideals that is the foundation of the Constitution and the American
way of life.
Most importantly, the Declaration of Independence is a spiritual statement
of dependence on God. For that reason and the fact that the rights
identified in the Declaration come from God, the Left wants to keep the
Declaration of Independence hidden from the view of elementary school
children and college students alike.
Really? Where does the Constitution use the word God in the Christian
sense?
The New Jersey State Assembly passed a bill in 1999 to require school
children to recite the Declaration of Independence, and the Left sent out
forces to vigorously lobby against it in the state senate. The New Jersey
Education Association said the Declaration of Independence is "too
jingoistic" and the reference to God crosses the line between separation of
church and state. Eventually, the bill was defeated.
"Recite" the Declaration? To what point? Why not teach the
Constitution and the Federalist Papers and give school kids an actual
grounding in the founding documents as opposed to a route recital of
words devoid of context.
In Nazi Germany, school children recited passages from Mein Kampf, in
China children memorized and recited Mao's Little Red Book. Do you
really want to emulate these societies?
What was the proposed recitation? It happens to be the vision statement of
America: "We hold these truths to be self-evident: that all men are created
equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain inalienable
rights, that among these are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness,
that to secure these rights governments are instituted among men, deriving
their just powers from the consent of the governed."
Read it, and learn how the Constitution works to gurantee those lofty
goals.
If somehow the Declaration of Independence can be presented absent its core
principles, the Left will engage in historical revisionism with great
fervor. This is the task of Harvard law professor Alan Dershowitz in his
latest book America Declares Independence. Dershowitz spends most of his
time attacking conservatives for believing in the essential Declaration of
Independence.
Really? So conservatives championed abolition, the women's vote,
civil rights and today are at the forefront of the gay rights issue?
"All men." All, or none. Defend that. Defend my friend Sylvan's
right to marry the love of his life even though that love is another
man, then you will be defending the concept that "all men are created
equal."
--
Douglas E. Berry Do the OBVIOUS thing to send e-mail
Atheist #2147, Atheist Vet #5
"Men never do evil so completely and cheerfully as
when they do it from religious conviction."
Blaise Pascal (1623-1662), Pense'es, #894.
.
|
|
|
| User: "kathryn" |
|
| Title: Re: Why The Left Hates The Declaration Of Independence |
18 Jun 2005 06:10:09 AM |
|
|
"Douglas Berry" <penguin_boy@mindOBVIOUSspring.com> wrote in message
news:oc37b1hif5pciu3l7g4ovi7opjcmuifsum@4ax.com...
On Fri, 17 Jun 2005 16:49:52 -0800, "Dana" <whoya@whoya.com> drained
his beer, leaned back in the alt.atheism beanbag and drunkenly
proclaimed the following
Why The Left Hates The Declaration Of Independence
By Hans Zeiger (07/06/03)
Since I was six years old, a poster of the Declaration of Independence has
hung on my bedroom wall. That's one reason why I turned out to be a young
conservative. But I don't suppose many Leftists have posters of the
Declaration of Independence hanging in their homes and workplaces. They've
managed to take it out of the schools too. It seems the Left would rather
burn it.
The Declaration is of equal importance to the Constitution,
No, it isn't. The Declaration is just that, a declaration that the
thirteen colonies were no longer beholden to England. It had no legal
force, that came with the Treaty of Paris.
The Constitution is the basis of law for our nation.
because it is
the founding creed of the United States. It is a classic doctrine of
American ideals that is the foundation of the Constitution and the
American
way of life.
Most importantly, the Declaration of Independence is a spiritual statement
of dependence on God. For that reason and the fact that the rights
identified in the Declaration come from God, the Left wants to keep the
Declaration of Independence hidden from the view of elementary school
children and college students alike.
Really? Where does the Constitution use the word God in the Christian
sense?
The New Jersey State Assembly passed a bill in 1999 to require school
children to recite the Declaration of Independence, and the Left sent out
forces to vigorously lobby against it in the state senate. The New Jersey
Education Association said the Declaration of Independence is "too
jingoistic" and the reference to God crosses the line between separation
of
church and state. Eventually, the bill was defeated.
"Recite" the Declaration? To what point? Why not teach the
Constitution and the Federalist Papers and give school kids an actual
grounding in the founding documents as opposed to a route recital of
words devoid of context.
In Nazi Germany, school children recited passages from Mein Kampf, in
China children memorized and recited Mao's Little Red Book. Do you
really want to emulate these societies?
What was the proposed recitation? It happens to be the vision statement of
America: "We hold these truths to be self-evident: that all men are
created
equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain inalienable
rights, that among these are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness,
that to secure these rights governments are instituted among men, deriving
their just powers from the consent of the governed."
Read it, and learn how the Constitution works to gurantee those lofty
goals.
If somehow the Declaration of Independence can be presented absent its
core
principles, the Left will engage in historical revisionism with great
fervor. This is the task of Harvard law professor Alan Dershowitz in his
latest book America Declares Independence. Dershowitz spends most of his
time attacking conservatives for believing in the essential Declaration of
Independence.
Really? So conservatives championed abolition, the women's vote,
civil rights and today are at the forefront of the gay rights issue?
"All men." All, or none. Defend that. Defend my friend Sylvan's
right to marry the love of his life even though that love is another
man, then you will be defending the concept that "all men are created
equal."
--
Douglas E. Berry Do the OBVIOUS thing to send e-mail
Atheist #2147, Atheist Vet #5
to paraphrase Orwell
"all men are created equal but some are more equal than others"
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: Why The Left Hates The Declaration Of Independence |
18 Jun 2005 03:59:03 AM |
|
|
Douglas Berry wrote:
In Nazi Germany, school children recited passages from Mein Kampf, in
China children memorized and recited Mao's Little Red Book. Do you
really want to emulate these societies?
Dude. In Nazi Germany, Mein Kampf was the "It Takes a Village" agenda
advancing political fluff book of its day.
Written as a hamhanded self-promotion, by the aspiring dictator Adolph
Hitler. He wrote it for one reason: to further his own power grab.
Then he forced people to read his own book.
Of course that is profoundly wrong.
If Germans 200 years from now decide it's their founding document, let
people argue about it then. That would be a matter of free choice.
The comparison to our Declaration of Independence is as absurd as
tiny-***** Durbin's silly assertions this week.
In America it's been more than two centuries now, since our forefathers
declared independence.
They did not do so to promote personal fortunes - they were each
(extraordinarily) wealthy, powerful individuals in their own right one
and all, who made the conscious decisions, that the future of their
brand new country, was more important than their own safety and
personal wealth.
They declared our nation. Defiantly, and very bravely.
Without exception, they were wiped out. Many were murdered. They lost
everything, yet they gave us a little bit of heaven, right here on
earth.
People like you don't appreciate that simple fact.
That's probably why you're always complaining so much.
.
|
|
|
| User: "t1gercat" |
|
| Title: Re: Why The Left Hates The Declaration Of Independence |
18 Jun 2005 05:26:27 AM |
|
|
The men who signed the Declaration came from all sorts of backgrounds.
Even the wealthiest ones weren't as rich as you seem to think, and,
while many of them did suffer, many eventually prospered as well. It's
primary author, Thomas Jefferson, never even fought in the Revolution
-- he lived in comfort as the Governor of Virginia. The ill fortune he
suffered while very old was due to his own excesses, not to any
sacrificies he may have made for the revolutionary cause. Other men,
like John Hancock, John Adams, Benjamin Franklin, William Paterson,
etc., went on to long, prosperous and distinguished careers.
In any event, the memorization of an historical document which, if you
ever bothered to read it, would reveal a small bit of deathless prose
connected to a long litany of mostly forgotten complaints against the
tyrranical actions of King George (which were mostly economic), would
benefit no one, certainly not children. Free people don't feel
compelled to mindless repetition of political sentiments. That is
something more akin to dictatorship than democracy.
As for bolstering the conservative cause, I wouldn't look to the
Declaration for that. For one thing, there is no mention of God. The
founders danced around the concept of the divinity by using the vague
phrase "creator." (Your mother and father could be considered to be
your creator.) For another, they affirm the right of the people to
revolt against leaders who steal from them, impose unfair taxes,
franchise their cronies, and constrict the freedoms of others. That
all sounds very Liberal to me. Finally, the finest words in the
Declaration have been seen and borrowed by all sorts of folks we'd
rather not dance with. Ho Chi Minh plagerized whole chunks of it for
the Communist Vietnamese Declaration and for its national song. The
Maylay Communists took copies of it and posted it on lamp posts in
Kuala Lumpur during the period of British rule (they got the
translations from the US Embassay).
Study the Constitution, yes. That's the fundamental law of the land.
Memorize it. Those words are profound and beautiful. As for the
Declaration, it's a collection of beautiful sentiments collectively
approved by a body of men whose personal beliefs and indelendent
interests did not always converge with the words it contains. Many of
them believed in the ascendency of the White Race and that slavery was
natural, normal and God-ordained. That conflict was not resolved for
almost a century after the Declaration was published, and the
resolution is to be found in our Constitution, godless though it may
be.
Wexford
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "raven1" |
|
| Title: Re: Why The Left Hates The Declaration Of Independence |
18 Jun 2005 07:44:19 PM |
|
|
On Fri, 17 Jun 2005 16:49:52 -0800, "Dana" <whoya@whoya.com> wrote:
The Declaration is of equal importance to the Constitution, because it is
the founding creed of the United States.
Bzzt. Wrong. Thanks for playing. The founding creed of the US, if
there is one, is found in the first three words of the Constitution:
"We the people", and is that government is legitimized by the consent
of the governed, not by providence.
Incidentally, the rights supposedly endowed to us by a creator in the
DOI aren't even Jefferson's first idea: he had originally intended
them to be "life, liberty, and property"
---
"This is how liberty dies: with thunderous applause"
- Padme Amidala, Episode III
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Curly Surmudgeon" |
|
| Title: Re: Why The Left Hates The Declaration Of Independence |
18 Jun 2005 06:57:40 AM |
|
|
On Fri, 17 Jun 2005 16:49:52 -0800, Dana wrote:
---------------snip-----------
Did you ever stop to consider that it's just you that people don't like?
-- Regards, Curly
------------------------------------------------------------------------
http://curlysurmudgeon.com/weird/political/bushire.jpeg
------------------------------------------------------------------------
.
|
|
|
|
|
Related Articles |
|
|
