This is typical; I cite quotes that clearly support my argument and you cite quotes to counter that don't clearly support your premise. Here is your first quote of Jefferson in his original rough draft:
We hold these truths to be self-evident; that all men are created equal and independent; that from that equal creation they derive rights inherent and inalienable, among which are the preservation of life, and liberty, and the pursuit of happiness; that to secure these ends, governments are instituted among men, deriving their just power from the consent of the governed; that whenever any form of government shall become destructive of these ends, it is the right of the people to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new government, laying it's foundation on such principles and organizing it's power in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their safety and happiness.
Notice something missing?
Obviously Jefferson did not want to link rights to 'Creator' or 'God'
The thing it, it is not obvious as you state.
Only if you assume as a false premise that Jefferson did not want to link rights to God or a "Creator" does it follow that he was excluding any reference to 'God' or 'Creator' for that reason. Basically, your argument is only reasonable under circular reasoning.
He could just as easily have understood rights as coming from God and viewed it as simply being accepted by society as such.
but to man himself... He was 'reinventing the wheel' in your terms shag.
Jefferson rejected that notion himself in the letter to Mr. Lee that I referenced in quoting Jefferson
in my last post.
This was the object of the Declaration of Independence. Not to find out new principles, or new arguments, never before thought of, not merely to say things which had never been said before; but to place before mankind the common sense of the subject, in terms so plain and firm as to command their assent, and to justify ourselves in the independent stand we are compelled to take. Neither aiming at originality of principle or sentiment, nor yet copied from any particular and previous writing, it was intended to be an expression of the American mind, and to give to that expression the proper tone and spirit called for by the occasion.
He did not consider himself to be reinventing the wheel; finding "new principles, or new argumentsn never before thought of. He was not in any way, "aiming at originality of principles or sentiment".
Jefferson, being a true revolutionary, wanted to take this all the way to his 'natural' conclusion - rights are derived from man himself.
I have already pointed out, twice, that Jefferson himself specifically rejected the idea that he was remaking the wheel, philosophically, so he wasn't being a "revolutionary" in that sense.
And if you run with the idea that Rights are inherent to being a human, the "natural" or logical conclusion is not that rights are
derived from man himself. If fact that second quote in my last post (which I will go more into in a bit) demonstrates that.
Can the liberties of a nation be thought secure when we have removed their only firm basis, a conviction in the minds of the people that these liberties are of the gift of God?
Liberties only have a "firm basis", in Jefferson's view, if they are viewed as coming from God. If rights are simply derived from being human, then they can be taken away by any government ruling over those people. The idea that the are derived from being human (without citing a divine involvement), then the foundation of those rights is unstable and weak. At that point, any type of unequal treatment and broad denying of those rights is justifiable, including slavery.
He was very angry when the congress messed things up - and in fact, had to be placated by Ben Franklin to even stay in the same room while his document was being torn apart, and all the teeth taken out of it.
So you agree that the Declaration was not simply a reflection of his views, but of the views of the whole Continental Congress. Good.
all other natural rights, may be abridged or modified in its exercise by their own consent, or by the law of those who depute them, if they meet in the right of others
...note, in Jefferson's quote above, all natural rights may be abridged or modified by
Man - if they were derived from God - they could not be abridged or modified by mere man.
I shortened your Jefferson quote to make it more readable. It still retains the relevant parts and meaning.
Yes, natural rights can be abridged or modified by man
through their own consent. Remember that under Lockean philosophy and in the United States, the government derives it's power
from the people it governs. They have to give up some rights to form the government. It is basic social contract theory and is perfectly consistent with Lockean philosophy and the idea that rights are God given. Nothing in that quote counter's the idea of Natural Rights.
And that last part about rights being modified or abridged, "by the law of those who depute them, if they meet in the right of others"? Due process to punish someone and remove certian rights. That is the basis for the court system.
Every government should have for its only end, the preservation of the rights of man; whence it follows, that to recall constantly the government to the end proposed, the constitution should begin by a declaration of the natural and imprescriptable rights of man.
Once again - rights are not derived from or are dependent on anything other than what is self-evident. Not any external authority - like God.
The point behind the idea of Natural Rights is to reject the idea that that rights come from the government; an external source that would effectively
perscribe rights as they see fit.
It was viewed as self evident that right came from God as the creator. They said as much in the opening of the Declaration of Independence:
We hold these truths to be 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.
Jefferson himself agreed that rights come from God, as I have pointed out in specific previous quotes:
The God who gave us life, gave us liberty at the same time; the hand of force may destroy, but cannot disjoin them.
Also - it is interesting that Paine and Jefferson had been discussing this for years... From a letter from Paine to Jefferson in 1777
A natural right is an animal right/ and the power to act it, is supposed either fully or in part, to be mechanically contained within ourselves as individuals.
I have a lot of these from Jefferson - he didn't think rights came from God.
You are citing a letter from and written by Thomas Paine as proof that Jefferson didn't believe in the idea of God given natural rights?! I have talked to athiests as well, does that make me and athiest? You are basing this on blatant
ad hominem "guilt by association" reasoning.
Paine was an athiest. His
Age of Reason was a clear ant-religious text that recieved a lot of flac from the Framers when it was published.
In fact, Franklin, a Deist, wrote Paine this letter after Paine sent him a manuscript making an "anti-God" argument
DEAR SIR,
I have read your manuscript with some attention. By the argument it contains against a particular Providence, though you allow a general Providence, you strike at the foundations of all religion. For without the belief of a Providence, that takes cognizance of, guards, and guides, and may favor particular persons, there is no motive to worship a Deity, to fear his displeasure, or to pray for his protection. I will not enter into any discussion of your principles, though you seem to desire it. At present I shall only give you my opinion, that, though your reasonings are subtile and may prevail with some readers, you will not succeed so as to change the general sentiments of mankind on that subject, and the consequence of printing this piece will be, a great deal of odium drawn upon yourself, mischief to you, and no benefit to others. He that spits against the wind, spits in his own face.
But, were you to succeed, do you imagine any good would be done by it? You yourself may find it easy to live a virtuous life, without the assistance afforded by religion; you having a clear perception of the advantages of virtue, and the disadvantages of vice, and possessing a strength of resolution sufficient to enable you to resist common temptations. But think how great a portion of mankind consists of weak and ignorant men and women, and of inexperienced, inconsiderate youth of both sexes, who have need of the motives of religion to restrain them from vice, to support their virtue, and retain them in the practice of it till it becomes habitual, which is the great point for its security. And perhaps you are indebted to her originally, that is, to your religious education, for the habits of virtue upon which you now justly value yourself. You might easily display your excellent talents of reasoning upon a less hazardous subject, and thereby obtain a rank with our most distinguished authors. For among us it is not necessary, as among the Hottentots, that a youth, to be raised into the company of men, should prove his manhood by beating his mother.
I would advise you, therefore, not to attempt unchaining the tiger, but to burn this piece before it is seen by any other person; whereby you will save yourself a great deal of mortification by the enemies it may raise against you, and perhaps a good deal of regret and repentance. If men are so wicked with religion, what would they be if without it. I intend this letter itself as a proof of my friendship, and therefore add no professions to it; but subscribe simply yours,
B. Franklin
In response to the
Age of Reason by Paine, John Adams said:
The Christian religion is, above all the religions that ever prevailed or existed in ancient or modern times, the religion of wisdom, virtue, equity and humanity, let the Blackguard Paine say what he will
Samuel Adams wrote Paine saying:
When I heard you had turned your mind to a defence of infidelity, I felt myself much astonished and more grieved that you had attempted a measure so injurious to the feelings and so repugnant to the true interest of so great a part of the citizens of the United States.
And you are citing Paine's side of the correspondence to prove that Jefferson rejected the idea of God given rights?! Again I ask, am I an atheist for having talked to athiests?
Jefferson even called himself a Christian, in a very specific sense. In a letter to Benjamin Rush on April 12, 1803, Jefferson wrote:
To the corruptions of Christianity I am indeed opposed; but not to the genuine precepts of Jesus himself. I am a Christian, in the only sense he wished any one to be; sincerely attached to his doctrines, in preference to all others; ascribing to himself every human excellence; & believing he never claimed any other.
Jefferson considered himsef a Christian and ascribed to God "every human excellence". Those excellences' would probably include life and liberty (natural rights) as well, don't you think?
Jefferson also wrote this in a letter to Francis Adrian Van der Kemp July 30, 1816:
Ridicule is the only weapon which can be used against unintelligible propositions. Ideas must be distinct before reason can act upon them; and no man ever had a distinct idea of the trinity. It is the mere Abracadabra of the mountebanks calling themselves the priests of Jesus.
If you look at these two quotes then, far from being a Deist, as is claimed by the modern secular distortions of him (which you seem to be functioning under), Jefferson was more likely a Unitarian. This was in sharp contrast to most of the Framers who were Trinitarians.
I believe that when you combine this, with what Adams did with a secular constitution (We the people, in order to form, it is very telling that Adams never once included 'God' in the forming, governing or establishing) you can see that the founding fathers wanted 'God' out of the equation when it came to rights.
And you have yet to present anything more then specious arguments, speculation and assumptions to support your "conclusion". You are finding quotes where Jefferson could have mentioned God, but didn't specifically do so, and assuming those as proof of him not buying into the idea of natural rights. The "quotes" you cite as proof, don't logically support your claim. They only support it through fallacious reasoning, assumption, half-truths and misdirection.
Your argument is logically countered by the quotes of Jefferson I cited. My argument, as I have shown, is logicaly consistent with both the quotes of Jefferson you cite
and the quotes that I cite.
If you cannot make an argument that is consistent with
all the various quotes of Jefferson, in context, then you have no credible argument. But you are only trying to disprove
my argument I suspect, so that your argument doesn't stand disproven and everything is subjective.
Oh, rewriting David Limbaugh now Shag? I mean 'Persecution'? Why don't you just quote him? Afraid I'll go after him again?
Actually, I cut and pasted it from some notes I had typed up from an in-class essay final from a year ago, or so. They probably came originally from Limbaugh's book.
Your second quote is interesting shag - here it is in context - and you will notice Jefferson is talking about slavery, not religion. It gives it quite a different bent...
. . .The man must be a prodigy who can retain his manners and morals undepraved by such circumstances. And with what execrations should the statesman be loaded who, permitting one half the citizens thus to trample on the rights of the other, transforms those into despots and these into enemies, destroys the morals of the one part and the amor patriae of the other. For if a slave can have a country in this world, it must be any other in preference to that in which he is born to live and labor for another: in which he must lock up the faculties of his nature, contribute as far as depends on his individual endeavors to the evanishment of the human race or entail his own miserable condition on the endless generations proceeding from him. With the morals of the people, their industry is also destroyed. For in a warm climate, no man will labor for himself who can make another labor for him. This is so true that, of the proprietors of slaves, a very small proportion are ever seen to labor. And can the liberties of a nation be thought secure, when we have removed their only firm basis, a conviction in the minds of the people that these liberties are the gift of god? That they are not to be violated but with his wrath? Indeed I tremble for my country when I reflect that God is just: that his justice can not sleep forever: that considering numbers, nature and natural means only, a revolution of the wheel of fortune, an exchange of situation is among possible events: that it may become probable by supernatural interference! . . .
Actually, my edited quote didn't distort the meaning of the words in question (which I highlighted). Those words were really the focus of the peice. Jefferson was showing that if rights were not viewed as coming from God by society, then the foundation for those rights is not solid and can shift; like sand. Under that assumption of rights not coming from God, slavery is morally justified.
Any unequal disribution/recognition of rights is morally justified, at that point. Government discrimination against women, blacks, homosexuals, anyone. If rights are seen as coming from God, then you cannot justify removing them from any portion of the population for any reason except on an individual basis through due process due to breaking the law.
Jefferson spells out how people, by their nature would go about removing rights of others to avoid labor, if there is no solid and consistent foundation for the inherent rights in man. The idea that those rights come from God
is that solid and consistent foundation.
Far from being an argument that in no way proves the idea of Jefferson supporting the idea God given rights; the argument is an affirmation argued by Jefferson himself in support of the idea of rights being viewed as God given.
