Unamerican people need to leave America

reply to post by SpectreDC


Democracy is put to use when voting on laws that DON'T interfere with our rights. That's not exactly the same as the Democracy we have now.

Where it's simply majority rule. And the majority can vote to interfere with you, violating the Constitution. (See Part 2)







[edit on 6-5-2010 by mryanbrown]

Originally posted by mryanbrown
reply to post by SpectreDC

 

Democracy is put to use when voting on laws that DON'T interfere with our rights. That's not exactly the same as the Democracy we have now.

Where it's simply majority rule. And the majority can vote to interfere with you, violating the Constitution. (See Part 2)

[edit on 6-5-2010 by mryanbrown]

I never said we were a pure democracy. My whole point is that democracy isn't a specific form of government. America IS a democracy, in the form of a constitutional republic. At least that is what it was designed to be. I like to consider it a corporatist oligarchical kleptocracy now.

Originally posted by SpectreDC
They were attributed to men and women, blacks and whites, gays and straights, christians and atheists, because all of these labels and categories exist under another label: HUMAN

........

I'm going to say this next part slowly, because this is where people seem to stop reading or start having trouble understanding, or simply refuse TO understand.

Our rights aren't "granted", "allowed", "given", "acquired", or any similar terms. They are not LEGAL rights.

The concept of "inalienable rights", of "life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness", is not LEGAL. They are not positive rights. It is NATURAL.

American principles are founded on NATURAL LAW. Natural law, as the name identifies it as, is the law of nature, the law of God.

Natural law is not granted upon anyone, because they are inherent in us.



I am so sick and tired of hypocritical, sycophantic, uneducated pieces of trash who have no idea what they are talking about...

I was ready to get into a new discussion, well thought out and interesting.

But you just shot yourself in your own foot with your own hypocrisy. You just wanted to rant. That's obvious now from your not well thought out beginning of your thread.

You state that people who are unamerican need to leave the country. Then you go on to define what YOU believe American means. It was the worse explanation I have seen yet. You, my friend, are completely way off point. I understand your frustration and I can see that you are most likely a right leaning conservative.

But you say that being American means following natural law. You state that it isn't applicable to just white men and so on and then go on to state that it covers all including atheists. Then you go on to state that the natural law is the law of God and that if you don't believe in that then you are unamerican. Which in turn automatically leaves out the aethiest.

But then you don't seem to understand that if we truly did follow 'natural' law that this country would not exist how it is today. The strongest would own large chunks and would use brute force to keep that ownership. Until someone stronger came along and took it from them. You see, that is the law of nature. The strongest and fittest survive. Sure, there are many that survive in unison but you can't just pick and choose what you like about a law to make it fit what YOUR concept of being American is.

Good luck kicking all of these unamerican (free thinkers) out of the country.

reply to post by dariousg


Or you can substitute God for 'the universe' and God given rights with 'common sense right and wrong'. And suddenly Atheists are included?

Seems to me like you're the one picking a rant because you see the word "God".

Sorry, the founding fathers were religious. Their religion gave you your freedom to be Atheist. Believing in God doesn't make you American, no ones stated that.

Originally posted by dariousg



You state that people who are unamerican need to leave the country. Then you go on to define what YOU believe American means. It was the worse explanation I have seen yet. You, my friend, are completely way off point. I understand your frustration and I can see that you are most likely a right leaning conservative.

The title was mostly tongue-in-cheek mockery against those screaming for people they don't like to leave America.

But you say that being American means following natural law. You state that it isn't applicable to just white men and so on and then go on to state that it covers all including atheists. Then you go on to state that the natural law is the law of God and that if you don't believe in that then you are unamerican. Which in turn automatically leaves out the aethiest.

Um no, that isn't what I said. I said the foundation of the principles we live by are derived from natural law. Natural law has multiple variations (although they are all fairly similar) and it can or can not be referring to a god or not. In a secular sense, natural law just means the rights we're endowed with just for being.

But then you don't seem to understand that if we truly did follow 'natural' law that this country would not exist how it is today. The strongest would own large chunks and would use brute force to keep that ownership. Until someone stronger came along and took it from them. You see, that is the law of nature. The strongest and fittest survive. Sure, there are many that survive in unison but you can't just pick and choose what you like about a law to make it fit what YOUR concept of being American is.

You clearly don't have the proper understanding of what "natural law" is. Go read some Hobbes, Paine, Aquinas, etc then come back to me on that.

Originally posted by maybereal11
Hey Jenna. Rarely agree with you and certainly don't here, but for some reason I always appreciate your posts...I think it is your "tone". Maybe that and for some reason your avatar plays upon deep rooted fond memories of my youth playing D&D.

I'm laughing right now because I often think the same of your posts. Usually don't agree with you, but I still like reading them for some reason.

It WAS the intent and spirit of that document to proclaim equal rights for all. The delay of implementing those ideals was due to congress and politics....not the founding fathers.

It may have been Jefferson's intent, I won't dispute that. But clearly not all of the founding fathers felt the same. The intent of the majority was that it was only a true statement in reference to white men. As I said, if that were not the case it wouldn't have taken two amendments for the rest of us to be able to vote. When writing something for a group of people, it isn't just the intent of the one holding the pen that's important. It's the intent of the group. The group in this instance only cared about white men and their rights.

reply to post by SpectreDC


This title is so misleading. I thought you were another A**hole coming in here to rant about how "good" of an american you are. I just want to say thank you for taking the time to write this out and i hope lots of people read this. S&F

Originally posted by Jenna
As I said, if that were not the case it wouldn't have taken two amendments for the rest of us to be able to vote.

Originally posted by mryanbrown
Sadly blacks never fought to have themselves recognized as equal men under the Constitution. They fought for civil rights, instead of unalienable god given rights.

The same goes for women.

Originally posted by Jenna
When writing something for a group of people, it isn't just the intent of the one holding the pen that's important. It's the intent of the group. The group in this instance only cared about white men and their rights.

Now you're starting to get it!

Blacks and women shouldn't have fought for amendments granting them civil rights. They should have left the Constitution as is and just fought to have themselves recognized as equals according to the Constitution. According to the Declaration of Independence, according to world recognized Human Rights, according to Natural Law.

They were already free and equal. They already had the right. They needed to fight to get the right recognized by society. Once recognized, the provision making them equal under law is already present. The scope of it has just broadened.

You didn't need additional amendments.

kthx.

[edit on 6-5-2010 by mryanbrown]

reply to post by Jenna


Founding Fathers include two groups..

The "Framers" who constructed the initial doc and
The "Signers" (Congress) who edited it before signing.

Jefferson and the "framers of the constition" at least reached a consensus on including the passage condemning slavery. I know it was a heated debate, but they did in the end agree to it.

It was congress that edited out those passages before signing it.

So maybe not ALL the "framers of the constitution" saw the issue as Jefferson, but a sufficient majority agreed to the language.

It would take too much research on my end to figure out who stood where amongst the founding fathers in the initial editing of the doc.

...but from Jefferson's authorship, letters etc. we do know what he meant by those words.

I can not fully blame congress for watering down the language. They had just declared themselves an independant nation. They were a rag-tag colony willingly starting a war with the most powerful nation on the planet...it took a lot moral cohones for Jefferson and others to even flirt with the idea of freeing the slaves and crippling thier plantations at the same time.

In retrospect, I still think they could have bore the brunt of both blows at the same time, and would have had an additional number of fiercly dedicated troops in the newly free slaves, and would have likely suffered less than we did in the civil war, but hindsight is 20-20.

Sidenote: One of my direct ancestors was a Quaker in NC at the time of the revolution. Among the tenants of quakerism were (1) the idea of equality under god...they were consistent abolotionists throughout the entire institution of slavery and (2) they were prohibited from participating or contributing in any way to wars.

Family papers reveal that my ancestor was chastised by the Quaker church for making and supplying weapons to the revolutionary army.

His moral passion got the better of him

Then again I also had a GGG grandfather that owned slaves, but fought for the north during the civil war, then returned home and set them free...absent his labor his farm was foreclosed on a year later, he wrote a letter explaining that he felt his participation in the war, his emancipating his slaves, and losing his farm were all "equally God's doing"...life was complicated then as it is now.

Originally posted by mryanbrown
Blacks and women shouldn't have fought for amendments granting them civil rights. They should have left the Constitution as is and just fought to have themselves recognized as equals according to the Constitution. According to the Declaration of Independence, according to world recognized Human Rights, according to Natural Law.

They were already free and equal. They already had the right. They needed to fight to get the right recognized by society. Once recognized, the provision making them equal under law is already present. The scope of it has just broadened.

The thoughts of one man who happened to put the pen on the paper does not equate to women and black men being equal in the Declaration of Independence or the Constitution at the time of their writing. If it did, he wouldn't have been over-ruled and it would have pertained to everyone not just white men. The thoughts of one person does not necessarily equate to reality. Otherwise the crazy guy in my old neighborhood who thought street lamps were women he needed to serenade at 2 am would have been right and he'd have a harem by now.

When the Constitution and Declaration were written, Jefferson was in the minority with his thoughts on equality. If the right to be seen as equals already belonged to women and black men of the time and was a true unalienable right, it would not have mattered what society thought. Society would have been incapable of taking that away. That is the very definition of an unalienable right. The mere fact that they had to fight to obtain that right proves you wrong in this instance.

And again I ask, whose version of natural law?

Click here for more information.

reply to post by maybereal11


They didn't condemn slavery until 1865 when they passed an amendment that did so. There was no consensus that slavery was wrong until then, and the civil war is evidence that even then there wasn't a consensus seeing as how it had just ended.

Originally posted by papagil
reply to post by SpectreDC

 

Basically, you get to have an opinion and I get to tell you to stuff it....now have a nice day.

One other note, sanctimonius pricks spouting off like you know everything is exactly why I hate sites like this and I am gone. dumbass

I would care if your response was within a ballpark of relevance to my post.

Sadly you're just like 1/3 of the people who have posted in this thread, spouting off without a proper understanding of what I am saying to begin with.

I don't act like any sort of "overlord" nor do I believe my opinion is better than anyone else.

What you and other people don't seem to get is that this isn't my opinion. It's a fact that natural law is an ethical theory in which was fundamental in the creation of this country and what it stands for.

You can debate about whether or not natural law is relevant today, but you can't debate that natural law is partly what spawned our country and the foundation for which it stands upon.

[edit on 6-5-2010 by SpectreDC]

Originally posted by Jenna
reply to post by maybereal11

 

They didn't condemn slavery until 1865 when they passed an amendment that did so. There was no consensus that slavery was wrong until then, and the civil war is evidence that even then there wasn't a consensus seeing as how it had just ended.

Originally posted by maybereal11
reply to post by Jenna

 

Jefferson and the "framers of the constition" at least reached a consensus on including the passage condemning slavery. I know it was a heated debate, but they did in the end agree to it.

It was congress that edited out those passages before signing it.

The Framers and Authors of the Declaration of Independence did in fact agree to condemn slavery. Congress edited those passages out.

So I guess we disagree on the word "They"?

I will have to read again but I thought the OP was speaking of the "Founding Fathers" who framed the constition and thier intent? Not congress.

[edit on 6-5-2010 by maybereal11]

[edit on 6-5-2010 by maybereal11]

Originally posted by Jenna

Originally posted by mryanbrown
The mere fact that they had to fight to obtain that right proves you wrong in this instance.

They have to fight for their rights in the society that takes them away, but society is not the spawn of nature/god. It's the spawn of man. Society is, I guess you can say, the "domain" of man. And often naught, man ignores natural law.

Nature/god didn't take away these rights, and these are rights that do in fact exist whether or not society views it such. They made society accept these rights not because they didn't have them, but mainly because they weren't viewed as humans to begin with. Even women were seen as second class humans. Just because it is seen like that by society does not negate the concept of inalienable rights; their inalienable in a just society because a just society follows the moral right. In an unjust society, they may not exist in the mind of those who don't allow them to exist, but that doesn't mean they don't exist. It's a denial of rights, not the non-existence or lack of granting them these rights.



[edit on 6-5-2010 by SpectreDC]

reply to post by Jenna


Your blatant ignorance, and disregard for the written facts is beyond annoying.

You continually danced around the the arguments presented to you, and spin your reply into some tangent. You ignore replies to your own questions, then reiterate them as if you are somehow making a point or lending validity to your posts.

Once again. There are no 'versions' of natural law. There are no version of common law. There are countries which follow a distinct adherence to common law. They are all rooted in Ecclesiastical law. Which has the simple premise of doing no harm, or causing no loss.

Do not encroach or interfere with a person or their liberty, and do not cause them loss.

"Oh but that sounds like the golden rule." That's because it is. It's the SIMPLE understanding of right and wrong. And I am truly sorry that escapes you.

I'm more apologetic that you WOULD DENY basic human rights to people solely due to the fact that slavery existed after the Constitution was founded.

I think you need to read the Constitution. Again, and again, and again.

Until you can actually point out where it references blacks, whites, women, etc.

Let's play the who can quote the Constitution and make a point game again...

We the people of the United States, in order to form a more perfect union, establish justice, insure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.

I don't see where it says We the white males of the United States. It says WE THE PEOPLE. Are you suggesting black people and women are not people outside of the amendments?

That statement would be just as valid today for blacks and women IF the amendments were not passed.

You're racist, and sexist to honestly sit here and try to argue that two amendments were required to get blacks and women recognized as equals.

IT WAS THE FIGHT that got them recognized. Not the amendments. The amendments just granted them inalienable civil rights, not UNALIENABLE GOD GIVEN RIGHTS.

Are you saying if we repealed those amendments that overnight blacks and women wouldn't have the right to vote? That suddenly every white male in America would be like, "well that's it, you no longer have the right."

Seriously... wtf.

[edit on 6-5-2010 by mryanbrown]

Originally posted by mryanbrown
reply to post by Jenna

 

That suddenly every white male in America would be like, "well that's it, you no longer have the right."


[edit on 6-5-2010 by mryanbrown]

Well maybe not everyone one of them but there certainly are some immoral jack offs who would

I think the biggest problem with people is that they don't know what natural law is. This has nothing to do with legal/law/justice. This has to do with ethics. Whether or not society accepted these ethics does not change the ideology from which the society first spawned from. And over time, slowly but surely, people have been accepting these ethics. First women, then blacks, and now the LBTG crowd.

reply to post by SpectreDC


Yes, but now those people are the minority. And we don't need additional laws making people equal. The majority can now follow the Constitution exactly as the authors intended. And if the minority who are bigots don't whish to accept the simple truth that all men are free.

Then they are free not to enjoy our society and be a part of it, enjoy it's protections and advancements.

[edit on 6-5-2010 by mryanbrown]

reply to post by maybereal11


The intent of a few people means nothing when they are over-ridden by the majority.

reply to post by SpectreDC


I did not write the post you have attributed to me.

Originally posted by mryanbrown
You continually danced around the the arguments presented to you, and spin your reply into some tangent. You ignore replies to your own questions, then reiterate them as if you are somehow making a point or lending validity to your posts.

What questions have you posed that I did not answer?

Once again. There are no 'versions' of natural law. There are no version of common law. There are countries which follow a distinct adherence to common law. They are all rooted in Ecclesiastical law. Which has the simple premise of doing no harm, or causing no loss.

This is patently false. That you continue to ignore that distinctions have been made by different philosophers over the years is evidence of your own ignorance, not mine. There was discussion of natural law going back to Aristotle and Plato. It didn't begin with Ecclesiastical law, nor does it end with it. That's equivalent to saying there was no such thing as natural law before paganism was abandoned in favor of Protestantism or Catholicism.

From this post:

Hobbes didn't believe unlimited rights was a good thing, he saw it leading only to basically an unending war with everyone trying to impose their will on every one else. He also found the idea of finding natural rights in natural law to be a preposterous notion because as he saw it, according to natural law all men had the right to take everything including things owned by others. Natural law according to Hobbes is anarchy. Complete and utter anarchy. Under his version of natural law, our Constitution would not work and there would be no equal justice unless by that you mean an eye for an eye.

Aquinas on the other hand pretty much took everything back to God, so God's law is natural law. His version is slightly better in that it follows the golden rule of do unto others, but not everyone buys into God's law and it's worth pointing out that God's law back in the day included stoning those who were accused of witchcraft. Not convicted, accused. No right to a fair trial there.

Locke only believed there were three natural rights. Life, liberty, and estate. Pain believed that governments only had power because the people gave them power.

Then there's any number of other versions out there. They are not all one and the same. They do not all go back to God. To claim that they all do is just ridiculous. As I suspected, you're tossing terms around without fully understanding them and then trying to call me ignorant.

As for common law, perhaps you should look up the definition of common law. It is not the same thing everywhere. Common law in the US is not identical to common law in Ireland which isn't identical to common law in Australia. Common law is common to the area it has jurisdiction over. Each time a court case is decided, common law changes slightly. It is fluid.

Do not encroach or interfere with a person or their liberty, and do not cause them loss.

"Oh but that sounds like the golden rule." That's because it is. It's the SIMPLE understanding of right and wrong. And I am truly sorry that escapes you.

The golden rule is part of God's law and is not necessarily the same thing as natural law.

I'm more apologetic that you WOULD DENY basic human rights to people solely due to the fact that slavery existed after the Constitution was founded.

Show me where I did that. Just one single little quote where I said that all human beings should not be considered equal.

I think you need to read the Constitution. Again, and again, and again.

Until you can actually point out where it references blacks, whites, women, etc.

Have you missed all the references I've made to the amendments where blacks and women are specifically given the right to vote? Do I need to quote them for you so you can find them?

I don't see where it says We the white males of the United States. It says WE THE PEOPLE. Are you suggesting black people and women are not people outside of the amendments?

Nice of you to try to put words in my mouth. I'm pointing out that at the time of it's writing, blacks and women were not considered equal with white men in the Constitution. To claim they were when it took one heck of a fight for us to be able to vote along side you is just asinine.

You're racist, and sexist to honestly sit here and try to argue that two amendments were required to get blacks and women recognized as equals.

Then explain to me why those amendments were required. If blacks and women were not looked down on as being less than equal to the almighty white man why did it require amendments for us to be able to vote? If we were equal already, and seen as equals, those amendments would have been unnecessary and adding them would have changed nothing.