Jefferson is only changing the phrasing of those rights in a document that is in no way legally binding and thus does not have the power to change (or "modify" or "abridge") those rights.
All we have to go on is your assumed premis that "divine decree" cannot be altered by man. The fact that under Lockean philosophy, Natural (God given) Rights and social contract theory are compatible shows that man can alter "divine decree" (if you want to call it that, though that is nothing more then spin) in this instance, at least. So you are working under a false premise.
Again, you are working under a false premise based on nothing more them speculation and assumption.
Ok, he implied it. Here is the quote (with relevant parts highlighted):
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.
The Declaration clearly ties rights back to God as the creator. Even Jefferson's own draft of the Declaration (his most important citation of those rights) ties those rights back to creation.
If he viewed those rights as simply inherent to being human, there would be no reason to tie them back to creation. To tie them back to the idea of creation is to tie them back to the idea of the rights being inherent because humans are a creature created by God in His image.
Just because he didn't specifically write "God" in reference to rights doesn't mean that it wasn't assumed. Again, the absence of proof is not the proof of absence.
Once again; the absence of proof is not the proof of absence.
You are the one who brought up social contract theory when you quoted Jefferson talking about it (post #93) and asserted the false premise that, "if they [rights] were derived from God - they could not be abridged or modified by mere man."
Here is the Jefferson quote in question (with relevant parts highlighted):
Every man, and every body of men on earth, posseses the right of self-government. They receive it with their being from the hand of nature. Individuals exercise it by their single will; collections of men by that of their majority; for the law of the majority is the natural law of every society of men. When a certain description of men are to transact together a particular business, the times and places of their meeting and separating, depend on their own will; they make a part of the natural right of self-government. This, like 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; but as far as it is not abridged or modified, they retain it as a natural right and may exercise them in what form they please, either exclusively by themselves, or in association with others, or by others altogether, as they shall agree.
Talking about rights being modified by consent (especially in reference to self-government) it to talk about social contract theory. In fact, that is the definition of social contract theory.
What you cited only demonstrates Paine's view. It logically says absolutely nothing about Jefferson's view. It nothing more that fallacious "guilt by association" reasoning.
First, Paine's letter doesn't say anything about Jefferson's ideas. So it doesn't tie back into the letter even if Jefferson was giving his view rights in that letter. The Paine letter is nothing more then an irrelevant and deceptive red herring.
And, in the letter Jefferson is not giving his view of rights; he is telling Lee what, "the object of the Declaration of Independence" was. In Jefferson's view, the Declaration was to be, "an expression of the American mind". In both Jefferson's rough draft and the final version, rights are tied back to the act of creation and thus the idea that those rights are due to being created by God and in His image.
Again, none of the facts you cite are inconsistent with Unitarianism. All you are demonstrating is your ignorance of Unitarian thinking.
Well, I clearly play by a different set of rules then either of you. I try to make reasonable, logical arguments and expect the same of others. You both have habitually demonstrated that you don't "play by" those rules.
And Fox, if you have some rebuttel to offer to the absence of proof thing; do it.
That is because the theory was created after the Bible was written.
How odd that God should leave that whole little bit out. I could easily show that in the Bible God was never concerned with rights, never endowed them on anyone...
You are misdirecting, again. We are talking about the Framer's views on the origin of rights; specifically Jefferson. Weather or not the Bible says's anything about rights is irrelevant to that discussion; another red herring.
And as to the "absence of proof" thing in that context. The only one making that argument there is you by arguing that because the Bible doesn't say anything about God endowing humans with inalienable rights (absence of proof), those rights don't exist (proof of absence).
And everyone else (including Cal) was talking about what the theory of natural rights is and what the Framer's understood it as. You were skipping ahead without first grounding yourself in an accurate understanding of the concepts and history being discussed, which is exceedingly presumptuous.
Another point based more on speculation rather then historical facts. Here is Jefferson's original draft of the Declaration:
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.
Now here are a few other quotes by Jefferson that reference those natural rights and give more insight into his views on what those rights were:
Man is capable of living in society, governing itself by laws self-imposed, and securing to its members the enjoyment of life, liberty, property, and peace.
-Jefferson, Declaration and Protest of Virginia, 1825
No Englishman will pretend that a right to participate in government can be derived from any other source than a personal right, or a right of property
-Jefferson, Answers to Soules Questions, 1786
"[It is a] great truth that industry, commerce and security are the surest roads to the happiness and prosperity of [a] people
-Jefferson to Francisco Chiappe, 1789
I like [the declaration of rights] as far as it goes, but I should have been for going further. For instance, the following alterations and additions would have pleased me...The people shall not be deprived or abridged of their right to speak, to write, or otherwise to publish anything but false facts affecting injuriously the life, liberty, property or reputation of others, or affecting the peace of the confederacy with foreign nations.
-Jefferson to Madison, 1789
-Jefferson, Declaration and Protest of Virginia, 1825
No Englishman will pretend that a right to participate in government can be derived from any other source than a personal right, or a right of property
-Jefferson, Answers to Soules Questions, 1786
"[It is a] great truth that industry, commerce and security are the surest roads to the happiness and prosperity of [a] people
-Jefferson to Francisco Chiappe, 1789
I like [the declaration of rights] as far as it goes, but I should have been for going further. For instance, the following alterations and additions would have pleased me...The people shall not be deprived or abridged of their right to speak, to write, or otherwise to publish anything but false facts affecting injuriously the life, liberty, property or reputation of others, or affecting the peace of the confederacy with foreign nations.
-Jefferson to Madison, 1789
Jefferson did view property as a natural right, but seemed to differentiate life and liberty, which he characterized as "personal rights" in the 1786 quote. Property rights seemed more along the lines of a right aimed at the pursuit of happiness; a broader, more all inclusive category. So, his understanding of Natural Rights seemed to expand on Locke's. This seems to be a very common view of the time as well. According to this article, The Pennsylvania Constitution said that, "all men are born equally free and independent, and have certain natural, inherent, and inalienable rights, amongst which are, the enjoying and defending of life and liberty, acquiring, possessing and protecting property, and pursuing and obtaining happiness and safety". The New Hampshire Constitution said, "acquiring, possessing and protecting property--and in a word ... seeking and obtaining happiness" were among the natural rights of men.
So, property rights weren't replaced by the pursuit of happiness, but appear to be considered a part of the pusuit of happiness.
