The coming evangelical collapse

[fossten]

How presumptuous of you.
It appears you have eaten all the brains and say you can answer questions about the mystery of life and death that have vexed scholars throughout the ages.
If faith is belief beyond reason there is no way you can give reasonable answers about the meaning of life and what happens after it.
No one can answer what you would do in heaven and why.
It is and always will be this way.

You asked a question, and I said I could answer it but am cautious of your intent, and you accuse me of being presumptuous?

Snarky, but it does reinforce my presumption that you weren't asking in good faith.

If you really want to know what I think about this stuff, PM me. I'm not interested in a 'my **** is bigger than yours' online contest when it comes to this subject.

 

[Calabrio]

We are in agreement there –

Which is an important starting point, but this really isn't about you or I. It's about the intention and philosophy that the founding fathers were applying over two hundred years ago.

God gave us free will – not ‘rights’. It is ‘our’ rights that the government protects and secures – the ones ‘we’ have deemed necessary to protect. We the people, not God, decide that liberty is a right to be protected. That is a conscious, human decision. That is our will. We recognize it as part of our condition. God didn’t grant us freedom upon our birth, he granted us free will, and what we do with that free will is our decision.

That may well be your conclusion, but that isn't the sentiment reflected by the founders of the country.

You're making a distinction between freedom and free will. This could well be a journey into semantics.

Once again – yep, we are created, and born with rights, but those rights aren’t ‘bestowed’ by God.

See that's where you and the founding fathers would differ.

God didn’t dictate a bill of rights to Moses in the Bible. Those rights our founding fathers were so concerned with are human rights, not divinely defined or bestowed – and they do change.

No they don't.

And I'm inclined to think what you're doing is preparing to later make an argument regarding the shifting societal definition of rights so that you can soon argue that modern trends stating that a "right to a house" or a "right to health care" or a "right to a new G3 cellular phone" are the natural evolution of rights so envisioned by the founding fathers. And that's absolutely untrue.

The fundamental rights are laid out. Life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.

Over time the right to be unique may be just as important as liberty. That isn’t printed there, in the constitution or the Declaration. But, with human cloning around the corner (or already here), do we have a right to be truly unique? Is it part of the human condition, as much as liberty? God hasn’t decreed ‘uniqueness’ anymore than he decreed ‘pursuit of happiness’ as a 'right'. Man decided on those rights our government protects. Within ourselves we declare that these are truths, that as our definition of self evolves, so does the definition of ‘self evident’.

You're muddying the waters here and it's not making supporting your point, it's merely taking us into a very murky direction.

We are different – that is why the ‘human’ part comes in. It isn’t ‘life’ rights, but ‘human’ rights. I haven’t heard of ‘bug’ rights, although giant fuzzy spiders seem to think their rights are just important as mine. God could endow rights to all His creatures… He doesn’t endow rights to any of His creatures. He gives humans free will.

You've just invoked God in the discussion, thus confirming that the creator is involved in the distinction, and in doing so defeating your own point.

 

[Calabrio]

Steam, Shag, or perhaps just hot air...

Shag is making a very valid point, one I made, but he's chosen to build upon it with more eloquence and in greater detail.

 

[foxpaws]

That may well be your conclusion, but that isn't the sentiment reflected by the founders of the country.

They didn't evoke God, especially in the Constitution and specifically in the Bill of rights, because they had evolved their thinking beyond that. They would have interjected 'divinity' into the constitution if they thought it would make our 'rights' stronger. They didn't. Our rights need to stand on their own, without any religion creating their definition of 'rights' according to their belief of what "God" would have bestowed on us.

No fuzzy 'God' involved. No worry about which church, sect, or current religious thought is taking place or currently sits on the top of the heap. Human rights. Defined by humans.

Something they were far more concerned about - religion defining government - and if they would have evoked God in to the basic principles, then they would have run the risk of involving religion into the basic treatises of our government.

You're making a distinction between freedom and free will. This could well be a journey into semantics.

There is a big difference between free will and freedom - look at your signature line Cal, they, of their own free will, laid their freedom at the feet.... Free will isn't stated, but it is there Cal, they 'own' their freedom, and they gave it up. They used their free will to give up a 'right'. They still have free will - but no longer do they have 'freedom'.

And I'm inclined to think what you're doing is preparing to later make an argument regarding the shifting societal definition of rights so that you can soon argue that modern trends stating that a "right to a house" or a "right to health care" or a "right to a new G3 cellular phone" are the natural evolution of rights so envisioned by the founding fathers. And that's absolutely untrue.

The fundamental rights are laid out. Life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.

Those items you mentioned in the first paragraph here Cal are rights to 'things', Jefferson very purposefully got rid of 'property' when he was writing the Declaration. Unlike Locke, who used 'property' or 'estate'. See, right there, Jefferson was taking quite a different path than Locke.

Pursuit of happiness isn't 'property'. Why don't you think that Jefferson and the founding fathers could have also started us down the path to separate our rights as given from God towards innately 'human'? They had already deviated from Locke on the 'property' point. I think the founders did start to remove 'God' and religious thought from our 'rights'. I think by not evoking God in the constitution they had headed down that path.

Homes, Healthcare, G3 phones - are property - 'estate' - things. Those shouldn't be rights... We could decide to give people those things, but not based on the fact that they have a 'right' to them. They don't.

You're muddying the waters here and it's not making supporting your point, it's merely taking us into a very murky direction.

No, this is an important point - the human condition isn't dependent on 'things' - but is it dependent on being 'unique'? We set ourselves apart from animals, and other creatures, but is it important that we also view ourselves as unique within the larger umbrella of 'human'? Is being unique a 'right' that we will need to evaluate at some point? Getting a bigger car isn't a 'right', but, what defines the basic 'essence' of 'rights'. How do we define 'rights' as we move forward and as our society changes. 'Pursuit of happiness' was quite a departure from 'property'. The founding fathers made that decision. Can you imagine telling someone from the Dark Ages that one of our rights was pursuing happiness? Would it be so incomprehensible that at some point we need to add something such as 'unique' to our basic lists of rights?

You've just invoked God in the discussion, thus confirming that the creator is involved in the distinction, and in doing so defeating your own point.

I don't understand... God created us - but God didn't create lists of 'rights' that we have.

 

[THEMOJOMAN]

The coming evangelical collapse

A marginalized put back in it's place Christian chapter in Western history is about to begin

Opinion By Michael Spencer

from the March 10, 2009 edition

http://www.csmonitor.com/2009/0310/p09s01-coop.html

• Michael Spencer is a writer and communicator living and working in a Christian community in Kentucky. He describes himself as "a postevangelical reformation Christian in search of a Jesus-shaped spirituality." This essay is adapted from a series on his blog, InternetMonk.com .

Oneida, Ky. - We are on the verge – within 10 years – of a major collapse of evangelical Christianity. This breakdown will follow the deterioration of the mainline Protestant world and it will fundamentally alter the religious and cultural environment in the West.
Within two generations, evangelicalism will be a house deserted of half its occupants. (Between 25 and 35 percent of Americans today are Evangelicals.) In the "Protestant" 20th century, Evangelicals flourished. But they will soon be living in a very secular and religiously antagonistic 21st century.
This collapse will herald the arrival of an anti-Christian chapter of the post-Christian West. Intolerance of Christianity will rise to levels many of us have not believed possible in our lifetimes, and public policy will become hostile toward evangelical Christianity, seeing it as the opponent of the common good.
Millions of Evangelicals will quit. Thousands of ministries will end. Christian media will be reduced, if not eliminated. Many Christian schools will go into rapid decline. I'm convinced the grace and mission of God will reach to the ends of the earth. But the end of evangelicalism as we know it is close.
Why is this going to happen?
1. Evangelicals have identified their movement with the culture war and with political conservatism. This will prove to be a very costly mistake. Evangelicals will increasingly be seen as a threat to cultural progress. Public leaders will consider us bad for America, bad for education, bad for children, and bad for society.
The evangelical investment in moral, social, and political issues has depleted our resources and exposed our weaknesses. Being against gay marriage and being rhetorically pro-life will not make up for the fact that massive majorities of Evangelicals can't articulate the Gospel with any coherence. We fell for the trap of believing in a cause more than a faith.
2. We Evangelicals have failed to pass on to our young people an orthodox form of faith that can take root and survive the secular onslaught. Ironically, the billions of dollars we've spent on youth ministers, Christian music, publishing, and media has produced a culture of young Christians who know next to nothing about their own faith except how they feel about it. Our young people have deep beliefs about the culture war, but do not know why they should obey scripture, the essentials of theology, or the experience of spiritual discipline and community. Coming generations of Christians are going to be monumentally ignorant and unprepared for culture-wide pressures.
3. There are three kinds of evangelical churches today: consumer-driven megachurches, dying churches, and new churches whose future is fragile. Denominations will shrink, even vanish, while fewer and fewer evangelical churches will survive and thrive.
4. Despite some very successful developments in the past 25 years, Christian education has not produced a product that can withstand the rising tide of secularism. Evangelicalism has used its educational system primarily to staff its own needs and talk to itself.
5. The confrontation between cultural secularism and the faith at the core of evangelical efforts to "do good" is rapidly approaching. We will soon see that the good Evangelicals want to do will be viewed as bad by so many, and much of that work will not be done. Look for ministries to take on a less and less distinctively Christian face in order to survive.
6. Even in areas where Evangelicals imagine themselves strong (like the Bible Belt), we will find a great inability to pass on to our children a vital evangelical confidence in the Bible and the importance of the faith.
7. The money will dry up.
What will be left?
•Expect evangelicalism to look more like the pragmatic, therapeutic, church-growth oriented megachurches that have defined success. Emphasis will shift from doctrine to relevance, motivation, and personal success – resulting in churches further compromised and weakened in their ability to pass on the faith.
•Two of the beneficiaries will be the Roman Catholic and Orthodox communions. Evangelicals have been entering these churches in recent decades and that trend will continue, with more efforts aimed at the "conversion" of Evangelicals to the Catholic and Orthodox traditions.
•A small band will work hard to rescue the movement from its demise through theological renewal. This is an attractive, innovative, and tireless community with outstanding media, publishing, and leadership development. Nonetheless, I believe the coming evangelical collapse will not result in a second reformation, though it may result in benefits for many churches and the beginnings of new churches.
•The emerging church will largely vanish from the evangelical landscape, becoming part of the small segment of progressive mainline Protestants that remain true to the liberal vision.
•Aggressively evangelistic fundamentalist churches will begin to disappear.
•Charismatic-Pentecostal Christianity will become the majority report in evangelicalism. Can this community withstand heresy, relativism, and confusion? To do so, it must make a priority of biblical authority, responsible leadership, and a reemergence of orthodoxy.
•Evangelicalism needs a "rescue mission" from the world Christian community. It is time for missionaries to come to America from Asia and Africa. Will they come? Will they be able to bring to our culture a more vital form of Christianity?
•Expect a fragmented response to the culture war. Some Evangelicals will work to create their own countercultures, rather than try to change the culture at large. Some will continue to see conservatism and Christianity through one lens and will engage the culture war much as before – a status quo the media will be all too happy to perpetuate. A significant number, however, may give up political engagement for a discipleship of deeper impact.
Is all of this a bad thing?
Evangelicalism doesn't need a bailout. Much of it needs a funeral. But what about what remains?
Is it a good thing that denominations are going to become largely irrelevant? Only if the networks that replace them are able to marshal resources, training, and vision to the mission field and into the planting and equipping of churches.
Is it a good thing that many marginal believers will depart? Possibly, if churches begin and continue the work of renewing serious church membership. We must change the conversation from the maintenance of traditional churches to developing new and culturally appropriate ones.
The ascendency of Charismatic-Pentecostal-influenced worship around the world can be a major positive for the evangelical movement if reformation can reach those churches and if it is joined with the calling, training, and mentoring of leaders. If American churches come under more of the influence of the movement of the Holy Spirit in Africa and Asia, this will be a good thing.
Will the evangelicalizing of Catholic and Orthodox communions be a good development? One can hope for greater unity and appreciation, but the history of these developments seems to be much more about a renewed vigor to "evangelize" Protestantism in the name of unity.
Will the coming collapse get Evangelicals past the pragmatism and shallowness that has brought about the loss of substance and power? Probably not. The purveyors of the evangelical circus will be in fine form, selling their wares as the promised solution to every church's problems. I expect the landscape of megachurch vacuity to be around for a very long time.
Will it shake lose the prosperity Gospel from its parasitical place on the evangelical body of Christ? Evidence from similar periods is not encouraging. American Christians seldom seem to be able to separate their theology from an overall idea of personal affluence and success.
The loss of their political clout may impel many Evangelicals to reconsider the wisdom of trying to create a "godly society." That doesn't mean they'll focus solely on saving souls, but the increasing concern will be how to keep secularism out of church, not stop it altogether. The integrity of the church as a countercultural movement with a message of "empire subversion" will increasingly replace a message of cultural and political entitlement.
Despite all of these challenges, it is impossible not to be hopeful. As one commenter has already said, "Christianity loves a crumbling empire."
We can rejoice that in the ruins, new forms of Christian vitality and ministry will be born. I expect to see a vital and growing house church movement. This cannot help but be good for an evangelicalism that has made buildings, numbers, and paid staff its drugs for half a century.
We need new evangelicalism that learns from the past and listens more carefully to what God says about being His people in the midst of a powerful, idolatrous culture.
I'm not a prophet. My view of evangelicalism is not authoritative or infallible. I am certainly wrong in some of these predictions. But is there anyone who is observing evangelicalism in these times who does not sense that the future of our movement holds many dangers and much potential?
________________________________________________________________

At the same time good news

Survey sees a drift away from religion in America

The percentage of Christians in the US declined, while that of people with 'no religion' almost doubled.

By Jane Lampman | Staff writer of The Christian Science Monitor from the March 10, 2009 edition

http://www.csmonitor.com/2009/0310/p01s02-ussc.html

Excerpt

One in every 5 US adults chose not to identify a religious identity: 15 percent chose "no religion" and the other 5 percent declined to name one.

________________________________________________________________

This demographic is painfully under represented but will be catered to by the Democrats as a new force for change.
I can't see the Republicans embracing these people unless they purge themselves of the religious right that Reagan invited into the Republican party.(And it could happen)

But then it is the end of an "Era" of 28 years of religious overinfluence and busybodying in national politics.

And to that I say AMEN

I TOTALLY "DISAGREE" as we enter economical breakdown and THE ME ME ME is destroyed PEOPLE WILL START REALIZING "THEY REALLY NEED EACH OTHER" we are noticing it in FREEMASONRY. THE "WHO NEEDS YOU" feeling we've had in AMERICA "FOR TOO LONG" is coming to a screeching halt.

 

[Calabrio]

They didn't evoke God, especially in the Constitution and specifically in the Bill of rights, because they had evolved their thinking beyond that.

You say things with such authority despite the fact that it's simply untrue. Are you arguing that the founders had "evolved" in 12 years to think beyond the Creator being the origin of our rights? No.

Again, the constitution does not grant us or rights. It is not a statement that define our rights or discusses the origins of it. It is the frame work for the government and it LIMITS power of the federal government. It was written to constrain the power and involvement of the federal government.

Something they were far more concerned about - religion defining government - and if they would have evoked God in to the basic principles, then they would have run the risk of involving religion into the basic treatises of our government.

Again, to the contrary, they were far more concerned with government involving itself in religion. Read the federalist and the anti-federalist papers.

There is a big difference between free will and freedom - look at your signature line Cal, they, of their own free will, laid their freedom at the feet.... Free will isn't stated, but it is there Cal, they 'own' their freedom, and they gave it up. They used their free will to give up a 'right'. They still have free will - but no longer do they have 'freedom'.

You are correct, there can be a difference between the two, but I'd like very much not to get into a discussion where we parse definition when commonly used terms are being used that we both understand in the context.

Those items you mentioned in the first paragraph here Cal are rights to 'things', Jefferson very purposefully got rid of 'property' when he was writing the Declaration. Unlike Locke, who used 'property' or 'estate'. See, right there, Jefferson was taking quite a different path than Locke.

First, I was responding to your claim that the "freedoms' expressed in the Declaration of Independence "changed" over time. They do not.

And the property- "pursuit of happiness change" came about during the drafting, not after it was signed. So again- no "evolution".

I think the founders did start to remove 'God' and religious thought from our 'rights'. I think by not evoking God in the constitution they had headed down that path.

Again, there I've never read any historical evidence or writing that supports any of theories you've presented in this thread.

As stated, the constitution isn't a statement that discusses where our rights derive from, merely a means of organizing government and limiting the power of the federal government. The organization of the government is secular, but that has nothing to do with the philosophy behind it's founding.

Homes, Healthcare, G3 phones - are property - 'estate' - things. Those shouldn't be rights... We could decide to give people those things, but not based on the fact that they have a 'right' to them. They don't.

Glad we agree on that.

No, this is an important point - the human condition isn't dependent on 'things' - but is it dependent on being 'unique'?

You really do want to take this conversation into a more broader direction...
It's something we'll have to come back to.

I don't understand... God created us - but God didn't create lists of 'rights' that we have.

No, there isn't a list.

But as American we believe that it's self-evident that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable 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, — That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security

 

[foxpaws]

You say things with such authority despite the fact that it's simply untrue. Are you arguing that the founders had "evolved" in 12 years to think beyond the Creator being the origin of our rights? No.

Again, the constitution does not grant us or rights. It is not a statement that define our rights or discusses the origins of it. It is the frame work for the government and it LIMITS power of the federal government. It was written to constrain the power and involvement of the federal government.

Why couldn’t they – You can’t prove that they didn’t – these men were revolutionaries – they changed everything… They were constantly ‘evolving’ on how they thought about government, rights, the human condition.

What is the bill of rights (last I checked a part of the constitution) if it isn’t a definition of rights? It tells the government that it isn’t allowed to impinge on these rights… the right of the people peaceably to assemble – a right, the freedom of religion – a right, freedom of speech - a right, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms – a right.

Again, to the contrary, they were far more concerned with government involving itself in religion. Read the federalist and the anti-federalist papers.

And read Jefferson and Adams if you want to see how concerned they were about ‘religion’ (not God, but religion) having their sticky fingers in Government.

But, yes they were concerned with both - not just one or the other...

First, I was responding to your claim that the "freedoms' expressed in the Declaration of Independence "changed" over time. They do not.

And the property- "pursuit of happiness change" came about during the drafting, not after it was signed. So again- no "evolution".

I was talking about ‘evolution’ from the time of Locke – Jefferson ‘evolved’ Locke’s treatises. He didn’t go down the road that Locke did regarding the ‘right of property’. He went down the more human essence to the ‘pursuit of happiness’.

You really do want to take this conversation into a more broader direction...It's something we'll have to come back to.

You take the discussion into broader scope, because our country was founded by revolutionaries – men who took everything into a broader scope. We don’t stop now… not in discussion.

 

[shagdrum]

A couple points to remember:

• Owning of property was (and is) considered a right per the 5th (and later the 14th) Amendment which states the following, "No person shall be...deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation". It is a very important distinction from socialism, where there is no right to private property. You have a right to the fruits of your labor.
• the Bill of Rights is a listing of what was generally understood as "liberties" at the time. Life is pretty self explainatory and property was pretty self explainatory, but what constitutes a "liberty" is much more vague.

 

[Calabrio]

Why couldn’t they – You can’t prove that they didn’t – these men were revolutionaries – they changed everything… They were constantly ‘evolving’ on how they thought about government, rights, the human condition.

The constitution is not a document of persuasion, it isn't written with the intention of justifying itself. That's why they didn't.
The Declaration of Independence was, it was presenting an argument.

You're totally off base on this point..

What is the bill of rights (last I checked a part of the constitution) if it isn’t a definition of rights? It tells the government that it isn’t allowed to impinge on these rights… the right of the people peaceably to assemble – a right, the freedom of religion – a right, freedom of speech - a right, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms – a right.

No, it doesn't define our right, it puts specific limits on the power of the federal government.

And read Jefferson and Adams if you want to see how concerned they were about ‘religion’ (not God, but religion) having their sticky fingers in Government.

I have and the concern was never the influence of religious people on government. There was never an interest in a theocracy, but a religious or moral people were always considered a crucial part of the nation's success. The fact that we have a secular government has nothing to do with the theory that our rights are endowed by a creator though.

I was talking about ‘evolution’ from the time of Locke – Jefferson ‘evolved’ Locke’s treatises. He didn’t go down the road that Locke did regarding the ‘right of property’. He went down the more human essence to the ‘pursuit of happiness’.

You are speculating wildly, with absolutely nothing to base that claim on.
We don't know precisely why Jefferson made this change when writing the Declaration of Independence. It could easily have been because liked how it was used when written in the Virginian constitution, and Jefferson was a Virginian.

Regardless this, I don't see how "the pursuit of happiness" in anyway reflects a rejection of the concept that our rights were endowed by a creator. This point is only reinforced by the fact that two phrases are part of the same sentence:

they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.

Again, those aren't our only three rights, but three important ones.

And frankly, at this point, because of this quote/respond format...I've lost track of what we were talking about.

You take the discussion into broader scope, because our country was founded by revolutionaries – men who took everything into a broader scope. We don’t stop now… not in discussion.

But that's not something I can snap out a response to, there is no "answer" to it... so we have to come back to it where there sufficient time and attention available.

 

[shagdrum]

We don't know precisely why Jefferson made this change when writing the Declaration of Independence. It could easily have been because liked how it was used when written in the Virginian constitution, and Jefferson was a Virginian.

It would seem to very succinctly summarize the idea of Natural Rights as those granted to humans due to being created in God's image. Because of that role as Creator of a creature in his image, God endowed humans with certian inalienable rights. I don't see how it could be worded any better then what they did in the Declaration. While you cannot prove that was what he was thinking, it lines up with Locke's thinking and the thinking of most of the political class at the time.

 

[fossten]

It would seem to very succinctly

Suck what?



Sorry, couldn't resist. Was channeling Robin Hood Men in Tights.

 

[shagdrum]

Suck what?



Sorry, couldn't resist. Was channeling Robin Hood Men in Tights.

Nice!

 

[foxpaws]

The constitution is not a document of persuasion, it isn't written with the intention of justifying itself. That's why they didn't.
The Declaration of Independence was, it was presenting an argument.

You're totally off base on this point..

The constitution is a document of Law - and it is revolutionary in how it was constructed, how it defines government and how that government 'governs'. The founding fathers continued their 'revolution' by creating a document that defined the role of government as none before.

The DOI isn't law... as you said, it is a presentation of why the colonies are breaking from England and the King.

Those two things don't say anything why I am 'off-base'. I don't understand.

No, it doesn't define our right, it puts specific limits on the power of the federal government.

So, what document defines our right to bear arms? The right to be secure in our homes? You can't limit the government's power over those rights unless you state our rights somewhere... In the Bill of Rights... which is part of the constitution...

I have and the concern was never the influence of religious people on government. There was never an interest in a theocracy, but a religious or moral people were always considered a crucial part of the nation's success. The fact that we have a secular government has nothing to do with the theory that our rights are endowed by a creator though.

There wasn't a concern about 'religious' people - there was a huge concern about 'religion' -look at my post Cal - I am talking about religion - I even pointed it out specifically so we wouldn't go down this path. And yes Adams went on and on about a moral and religious people - but, he also wrote the constitution very specifically leaving out every reference to God. If you assume that God gives us our rights - which God is it? Is it Allah? Allah seems to have a different idea of what 'rights' are. Is it Buddha? The Great Eagle? If we were an atheist society would we have no 'rights'? Can our rights depend on something as incongruous as "god'?

You are speculating wildly, with absolutely nothing to base that claim on.
We don't know precisely why Jefferson made this change when writing the Declaration of Independence. It could easily have been because liked how it was used when written in the Virginian constitution, and Jefferson was a Virginian.

Actually because he was a Virginian is one of the biggest reasons Jefferson was one of the 5 men chosen to write the DOI.

And as far as diverting from Locke - Locke didn' t even envision a government 'of' or 'by' the people. He supported a government 'for' the people - a big difference. Locke didn't establish principles of self government- where the 'people' are the ultimate authority, above, in Locke's case, King and parliment. Once again our founding fathers went way beyond Locke. Jefferson, in particular, felt that the powers of the government flowed from the people.

So, when Jefferson stated the basic rights of man, he went beyond Locke's "life liberty, and property," and went with, "life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness." Locke's basic rights are only aimed at justice. Jefferson's are aimed at human fulfillment. The difference between a government 'for' the people (Locke) and Jefferson's government 'by' the people. Locke's vision is far more narrow, and with the word 'property' it really shows the limited scope of Locke's 'rights'. Jefferson's 'pursuit of happiness' goes beyond the right to own property, and addresses the rights that speak to the human condition, freedom of speech, religion, etc.

But that's not something I can snap out a response to, there is no "answer" to it... so we have to come back to it where there sufficient time and attention available.

And I hope we get back to 'rights' in the future... We won't agree on what Jefferson meant - and there isn't enough proof in either direction. Locke gets thrown around, but when you read Locke you realize very quickly that our founding fathers went way beyond Locke's outline. I think the evidence points that they made a conscious decision to remove 'God' from our government, because of the problems they had with organized religion (which is extremely well documented). They didn't remove God from their lives, that they viewed as a very personal choice (once again - well documented). But when making decisions regarding government, they left God as a private matter.. Plus they were in this amazing climate of 'reason' and they were very involved on taking on the task to define what makes us 'human', a universal condition. What is consistent in the human equation? Humanity, not 'God'

 

[Calabrio]

Those two things don't say anything why I am 'off-base'. I don't understand.

Because you appeared to be questioning why they didn't explain the nature and origin of rights in the constitution.

You can't limit the government's power over those rights unless you state our rights somewhere... In the Bill of Rights... which is part of the constitution...

The Bill of Rights doesn't define all of rights, it merely states those liberties that are so important that they are specifically protected from the federal government.

Again, the constitution is about limiting the government, not limiting the individual.

he also wrote the constitution very specifically leaving out every reference to God.

Yes, because the constitution doesn't address the philosophical explanation from where our rights are derived from.

If you assume that God gives us our rights - which God is it?

This isn't specifically about what you or I think, but the philosophy applied at the founding. It states that the rights are endowed by the Creator, it doesn't specify any deity. However, the were in fact referring to their understanding of the judeo-christian God.

If we were an atheist society would we have no 'rights'?

All of this stuff is really address beautifully in the Declaration of Independence. It seems kind of silly for me to think of increasingly hamhanded and simplistic ways of repeating those principles over and over again.

If we were an atheist society, government would ultimately be the highest authority we were to answer to. If it were to grant us our rights, it would have the power to take them away as well.

Can our rights depend on something as incongruous as "god'?

Absolutely.

And I hope we get back to 'rights' in the future... We won't agree on what Jefferson meant - and there isn't enough proof in either direction. Locke gets thrown around, but when you read Locke you realize very quickly that our founding fathers went way beyond Locke's outline.

They did. And you seem to forget how important the writings of St. Thomas Aquinas were as well.

But you're making a huge mistake here, you seem to be arguing that it's inconsistent to have a secular government that recognizes our rights are endowed upon us by the creator. That's not true. It's precisely the system we have.

 

[foxpaws]

The Bill of Rights doesn't define all of rights, it merely states those liberties that are so important that they are specifically protected from the federal government.

Again, the constitution is about limiting the government, not limiting the individual.

earlier...

It is not a statement that define our rights or discusses the origins of it.

Finally we have gotten to it does define 'some' rights – and it certainly is banty-ed around when it comes to not allowing some rights. If a right isn’t stated in the constitution, people use that ‘excuse’ for not allowing it. The constitution does limit government, but it does limit our rights – if nothing else by not mentioning some of them. If they aren’t mentioned – they aren’t upheld in many cases. Heck it did a pretty good job of removing rights during prohibition. Our rights are not all held in the constitution, as you stated, but certainly a lot of them are, and many of our 'other' rights are based on those rights mentioned in the Bill of Rights and the subsequent amendments.

This isn't specifically about what you or I think, but the philosophy applied at the founding. It states that the rights are endowed by the Creator, it doesn't specify any deity. However, the were in fact referring to their understanding of the judeo-christian God.

So, we are back to judeo-christian which you removed from debate earlier. Jefferson left God out, and Adams continued to remove it entirely and create a secular government. Why would the founding fathers assign ‘rights’ to God? Our right to bear arms isn’t god-given… Is it only certain ‘rights’? The big 3 as it were?

But you're making a huge mistake here, you seem to be arguing that it's inconsistent to have a secular government that recognizes our rights are endowed upon us by the creator. That's not true. It's precisely the system we have.

When, during the course of time, a different religion rises from the ashes of what is left of Christianity (example here) and Thor happens to rise to the top we are to believe that our rights are depended on his ‘endowment’ of them? You are really basing this on the judeo-christian God aren’t you Cal – in spite of trying to make ‘creator’ work. You are taking our secular form of government and building it on endowments from a very specific judeo-christian God.

They did. And you seem to forget how important the writings of St. Thomas Aquinas were as well.

There could be a chance that our founding fathers went beyond Locke regarding the ‘endowment’ of rights? They certainly went beyond Locke in many other areas.

St Thomas Aquinas – well, he was a best a really hard read, and I am not catholic, so not 'required' at any point. I have only read small things about and by him. But I do remember that Jefferson was very interested in Aquinas’ idea that the first thing to determine law was that good was to be promoted, and encouraged and evil was to be avoided, and all other laws should precede based on this first concept of ‘natural law’.

I also know that Aquinas saw natural human values (rights) as the natural laws that governments have ‘jurisdiction’ over (which moved to ‘protection of’ in our constitution – a very radical change, and is one of the major differences that makes our form of government so very different than those preceding). However divine law is outside of that, the law that is shown in scriptures. Aquinas separated natural law and divinity… venial sin, mortal sin. God removed from government, and not really a lot to do with where ‘rights’ are derived from.

 

[shagdrum]

Fox, you are not even making a coherent argument. You are just reacting with the purpose of obfuscating things so that your opinion cannot be disproven.

The bill of rights lists what was generally considered by the founding generation as "liberties" that rose to the level of needing protection from government at the federal level. Those rights can (and have) been added to through amendment. But if a right is not explicitly listed in the constitution, it is not recognized by federal law. You cannot simply assert whatever right you damn well want and claim it is in the constitution. To do so ignores the rule of law.

You are clearly working to muddy the waters enough (by talking in circles, misdirecting/ mischaracterizing, beng vague, etc.) to the point where everything is subjective and your ignorant, baseless and speculative view is as acceptable as truth as the historical facts and historical record; all legitimate critical analysis of your view (as well as any honest debate) is avoided or at least dishonestly marginalized.

It is really quite sad. You cannot look past your own ideology, even to understand the opposing argument. Your political and social views are so myopic that you fight accepting, even as a hypothetical, the premises of a theory to understand that theory. If you cannot understand an argument, you cannot critically analyze it. If you cannot critically analyze it, then you cannot reasonably and honestly disprove it. All you are left with are dishonest and decietful arguments. There is no chance of an honest debate at that point.

In short, you are closed minded (as much as I hate using that term) and irrationally biased.

I almost feel sorry for you.

 

[foxpaws]

Fox, you are not even making a coherent argument. You are just reacting with the purpose of obfuscating things so that your opinion cannot be disproven.

The bill of rights lists what was generally considered by the founding generation as "liberties" that rose to the level of needing protection from government at the federal level. Those rights can (and have) been added to through amendment. But if a right is not explicitly listed in the constitution, it is not recognized by federal law. You cannot simply assert whatever right you damn well want and claim it is in the constitution. To do so ignores the rule of law.

Well, shag - I was actually trying to get Cal to state that the Constitution did have rights listed - he stated they didn't - Have you been following?

That is why I put his old quote up there in my post - the one that stated 'It is not a statement that define our rights'

Get it? I was trying to show that the constitution is in part a statement that defines our rights.

I know I can't just go around claiming rights - I was trying to find out why Cal thought the constitution 'didn't' have our rights defined.

Agghhhhhhhh

In short, you are closed minded (as much as I hate using that term) and irrationally biased.

I actually feel sorry for you.

Shag, I am not that closed minded - nor 'irrationally biased' I am looking way beyond what you are looking at - I am exploring what lies behind the word. What rational went into the words that the founding fathers penned.

I wouldn't say you are closed minded, but do you ever explore, look, question, wonder, knock around, place up for discussion, see beyond, or even think 'why'?

This is an exploration of where our 'rights' originate. With that we have been looking at why Thomas Jefferson used the word 'creator' and why later, Adams created a secular government. And would you base a secular government on God given rights?

I have been somewhat ignoring you because you don't explore. I am exploring here - far more interesting than debate. Cal understands... you don't.

Feel sorry for me Shag.

 

[Calabrio]

Well, shag - I was actually trying to get Cal to state that the Constitution did have rights listed - he stated they didn't - Have you been following?

I still differ with this opinion, the constitution does not explicitly state all of our specific rights, but merely limits the power of the federal government from imposing on select group of them.

The constitutional is a document that is designed not to limit or narrowly define our rights but to limit the federal government.
The bill of rights was a nod to the anti-federalists who wanted to limit Washington, not the states or the individuals.

Get it? I was trying to show that the constitution is in part a statement that defines our rights.

Which is still unrelated to the point of the conversation having to do with where to do rights come from. And you're claim that the lack of this philosophical discussion from the constitution was indicative of anything the supported your earlier point.

As interesting as your flow of conscience may seem to you, it's rather difficult to keep you on point here. I get the sense that I'm having this discussion with someone sitting at a drum circle with that distinct smoke smell in the air.

 

[shagdrum]

I wouldn't say you are closed minded, but do you ever explore, look, question, wonder, knock around, place up for discussion, see beyond, or even think 'why'?

You clearly don't understand those theories and refuse to allow yourself to first understand them. You can't "explore" without first understanding the theory and how it all fits together. Then you do a critical analysis of the various ideas, policies and/or theories. Otherwise, you are simply intellectually throwing anything against the wall to see what sticks and are basing your argument on ignorance, speculation and mischaracterization (weather intentional or not). No real "truth" can be derived from that.

All this talk of "exploring behind the word" is stuff I have already done in a number of political science classes and in reading on my own (critical examination and comparison of political theories is probably one of my favorite areas of poltical science). I had a class a couple years back that required us to read all 85 articles in the Federalist papers as well as the writings of the Federal Farmer and a number of other anti-federalist sources. Other philosophy classes have required the reading of many of the thinkers that influenced the framers; Locke, Montesquieu, Aquinas, etc, as well as various writings of a number of the Framers. Then there is the critical examination and comparison between the various thinkers, which is the fun part.

An interesting side note; a study by political scientists a few years ago, found that the framers cited the Bible more then any other source in their writings. Somewhere between 30% and 40% of direct source quotations were from from the Bible, if I remember correct.

The problem with theory (or "exploring") is that it can easily get out of hand and lose any sight of (or basis in) reality. Weather you mean to or not, that is where you are trying to take this discussion; out of any grounding in reality. When you turn something like this into an academic exercise where the more clever argument triumphs, you cannot get at the truth, because everything is subjective at that point. But, at that point, you can rationalize anything through simple speculation and baseless assertion; that is why many philosophy majors tend to be pompous jerks who highly overrate their intellect, IMO.

Besides, while you may be wanting to "explore behind the word", Cal is clearly trying to clear up and explain the historical record and educate you on the theories and philosophies that the founders tapped and understood in their creation of. Given your claim of wanting to "explore", it seems pretty clear to me that you two are not on the same page and, as such, are effectively talking past each other.

 

[foxpaws]

I still differ with this opinion, the constitution does not explicitly state all of our specific rights, but merely limits the power of the federal government from imposing on select group of them.

The constitutional is a document that is designed not to limit or narrowly define our rights but to limit the federal government.
The bill of rights was a nod to the anti-federalists who wanted to limit Washington, not the states or the individuals.

So, Cal - read my stuff above - we get in trouble because 'all' our rights aren't stated in the constitution... As an example of where we get in trouble... look at Shag's post - he states all of our federal rights are stated in the constitution...
But if a right is not explicitly listed in the constitution, it is not recognized by federal law.

Which is still unrelated to the point of the conversation having to do with where to do rights come from. And you're claim that the lack of this philosophical discussion from the constitution was indicative of anything the supported your earlier point.

It is on the edge of this whole conversation, but I just couldn't let the 'our rights aren't defined in the constitution' statement of yours just fly by ... You can add the caveat you did about adding it being added by anti-federalists... but, it is still there.

As interesting as your flow of conscience may seem to you, it's rather difficult to keep you on point here. I get the sense that I'm having this discussion with someone sitting at a drum circle with that distinct smoke smell in the air.

Well, not smoke... blick... not my drug of choice...

But, heck, why not, for a change, use this as a place to exchange rather than battle. It is interesting to see how you think it is ok to base secular government on God. That the human condition isn't the underlying 'glue', but divine given rights are. Did the founding fathers? Once again - your evidence points to yes, I think I have some interesting evidence that points to 'perhaps not'. This is the type of question that remains in the realm of 'why'. The Whys of the world are actually more interesting than the battle of semantics.

 

[shagdrum]

I get the sense that I'm having this discussion with someone sitting at a drum circle with that distinct smoke smell in the air.

Not all of us drummers smoke that wacky tabaci.

 

[ford nut]

But, heck, why not, for a change, use this as a place to exchange rather than battle. It is interesting to see how you think it is ok to base secular government on God. That the human condition isn't the underlying 'glue', but divine given rights are. Did the founding fathers? Once again - your evidence points to yes, I think I have some interesting evidence that points to 'perhaps not'. This is the type of question that remains in the realm of 'why'. The Whys of the world are actually more interesting than the battle of semantics.

Wouldnt that be nice.
After all I think its a community discussion form, not a battle ground for the debate team.

Good luck with that fox.
I will keep my fingers crossed.

 

[foxpaws]

The problem with theory (or "exploring") is that it can easily get out of hand and lose any sight of (or basis in) reality. Weather you mean to or not, that is where you are trying to take this discussion; out of any grounding in reality. When you turn something like this into an academic exercise where the more clever argument triumphs, you cannot get at the truth, because everything is subjective at that point. But, at that point, you can rationalize anything through simple speculation and baseless assertion; that is why many philosophy majors tend to be pompous jerks who highly overrate their intellect, IMO.

Well, I guess I am glad I was an art major, so I won't run the risk of being a pompous jerk At least that is one thing that shouldn't be on my long list of faults that you have taken much time and effort in pointing out to everyone numerous times Shag.

And I am not smarter than Cal - or probably you (that art major you understand)... So, I have grounded my points - as best I can. I have read Locke, ages ago, but Cal seemed pretty taken aback that I certainly knew that Jefferson and Locke differed on many points, and that Locke had government based 'for' and not 'by' the people.

I have thrown out a supposition. People here might read it and think differently about something - so what? Almost no one reads this junk here, it is an exercise for us. And if 4 of them do look into this subject, well, good, I maybe have gotten them to explore and look at where rights come from. They might go down your path of 'God', but at least they are aware that not all people think that way, and perhaps the founding fathers didn't either. They can read for themselves and form their own opinion.

I am never afraid of letting people form their own opinions.

 

[shagdrum]

It is on the edge of this whole conversation, but I just couldn't let the 'our rights aren't defined in the constitution' statement of yours just fly by ... You can add the caveat you did about adding it being added by anti-federalists... but, it is still there.

But the constitution doesn't "define" our rights. It only "defines" the powers of the federal government. The Bill of Rights enumerates our rights and effectively clarifies what were viewed as essential liberties, but it doesn't "define" those rights. It would actually be rather helpful in interpreting the constitution if it did "define our rights".

But, heck, why not, for a change, use this as a place to exchange rather than battle.

but you need to keep it grounded in reality, otherwise it is purely a subjective academic exercise that cannot end up at any real truth. To keep it grounded in reality, you first have to have a basic (and agreed upon) understanding of the thinking of the time in the formation of the Constitution.

If you simply "make up the truth" as you go along, then you cannot arrive at anything more then fiction.

 

[shagdrum]

I am never afraid of letting people form their own opinions.

I am very affraid of ignorant and irrational opinions. That makes for the type of "useful idiot" that tends to support totalitarian and authoritarian regimes. The less of those, the better.