If "Our Creator" endowed us with rights...

All of your Rights ARE in the Bible. You would need a thread for each of them.

 

Every power it has was granted by the people.
It is limited in that it has no power other than the finite specific powers granted to it.

 

When will you demonstrate any right the government has granted?

 

Seriously? SERIOUSLY?!?!

Go look up Gay, Black, Women rights and the "Christian" response to the effort to obtain the rights you claim as "inalienable."

Then come back and try again.

NOTHING about the formation of this country was Christian. In fact its creation was a clear violation of Christ's commandments.

"Let every person be subject to the governing authorities. For there is no authority except from God, and those that exist have been instituted by God."

 

So you are saying that the values from a majority christian population had no impact in this country's foundation of laws and system of government??

Do you think our concept of right to free speech, as example, would be the same if this country was founded by majority muslims?

 

Christian?

NO. The laws in this country are based on property rights not on any religious view.

The only laws in this country that reflect religion are the "Blue" laws designed to suppress the rights of those not in the religious mjority.

 

So...again I ask....since you believe that religious values have no part in our country's laws and important values.....then do you believe that our concept of rights...free speech for example... would be the same as it is today if we were founded by a majority muslim population?

 

If the Muslim Majority population had the history of English law, yes. Let us not forget that the Muslims were targets of the inquisitions CONDUCTED BY CHRISTIANS not the instigators.
The creation of this country reflected a very real effort to keep religion OUT of government.
The first is not about protecting religion from government it is about protecting the people from religion.

 

The "people" in ratifying the Bill of Rights acknowledge that the Rights preexisted.

“The absolute rights of individuals may be resolved into the right of personal security, the right of personal liberty, and the right to acquire and enjoy property. These rights are declared to be natural, inherent, and unalienable.” Atchison & N. R. Co. v. Baty, 6 Neb. 37, 40, 29 Am. Rep. 356 (1877)


“Men are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights,-'life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness;'and to 'secure,'not grant or create, these rights, governments are instituted.
BUDD v. PEOPLE OF STATE OF NEW YORK, 143 U.S. 517 (1892)

 

You got that equation exactly backward.

 

Reading Lesson.

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof;..."

You can't touch us and we can't touch you.

That's not "we're doing this for God," it's "Keep God the hell out of government and Government the hell out of God."

You're welcome.

 

Agree

The government however had no powers prior to acquiring the ones granted to it via contract with the citizens

 

Well it's a nice twist to turn the 1st to freedom from religion rather then freedom of religion but I will let you live with that because it makes my point that the true appreciation of our freedoms is understood by those with Christian values...not necessarily Christian but at least prioritizing those values.

But ultimately you are saying muslims would have to depend on the laws constructed by the Western Christian majority nations to understand the importance of freedom of speech?

 

Not really. And many are contradicted by the Bible at one point or another. The Bible isn't that fond of freedom of religion, for example. The OT sentences those who practice it to death, the NT praises those laws, and even Paul says that "hatred of God" should still be punishable by death.

 

How do you relate U.S. slavery and Salem to freedom?

I wonder still if you know what freedom is as you have yet to reply to where I showed that your god does not allow freedom of thought.

Regards
DL

 

Christian scriptures stand against these freedoms and Christians, for the vast majority of their history, stood against them. If being a Christian wasn't a barrier, being an atheist or Muslim wouldn't have been either. These freedoms were championed DESPITE Christianity, not because of it.

 

Do you have a sample or three on this?

I do not disagree, but nothing comes to mind unless your mean the anti-sodomy or death to gay laws and anti-abortion laws. Are those a part of what you mean?

Regards
DL

 

We invented rights, enshrined them in the constitution, and then to give them an air of superior authority, we said they came from God.

It's an interesting theory, except that these rights didn't exist until we created them and enforced them. So at best, if you're a believer, you can say God gave us the ability to have rights, but he didn't actually give us those rights.

 

Given that it has nor served all Americans well, that is a good bet.

Many see your corrupted political system trying to work with an inferior constitution as a good reason for a rethink.

Mind you, other countries use some of it's tenets better than Americans do as they have cherry picked the best and ignored the worst.

Regards
DL

 

I do not see it that way.

Muslims know what freedom of speech is. They want to end ours with anti-blasphemy laws while they have no problem with their blasphemy of other religions.

I glean that from this link and from their killing cartoonists and others who they did not like, and glorifying their own blasphemers.



Regards
DL

 

When I am told of the inferiority of theUS Constitution in generalities, I have to ask (an I never get a coherent response to the question), what specifically is wrong with the Constitution?

 

"Our Creator" is whatever we think has brought us into being It's just another way of saying "It is axiomatic" or "Existence"

It sure as hell DOESN'T mean the Christian God. It CAN but doesn't have to mean a God at all. This is one reason the Founding Fathers were fond of the term "Providence" instead, whose derivation is from providentia meaning foresight

 

Specifically, for one thing the Electoral College.

NOBODY but Trumpers thinks it's fair or even makes sense. The BS about population centers having more influence is purely a "well, duh" thing as is blatantly obvious. That is, after all, why they ARE population centers.

Not even Trump was for it, until it made him President.

https://www.nationalpopularvote.com...-electoral-college-and-favors-nationwide-vote

 

Whether you consider it a flaw is an opinion. If it were shared by the majority, the Constitution has provisions for Amendment, which in my opinion is one of the major reasons the Constitution is still one of the best guides for governing that currently exists, in part because it can be amended.
As for the Electoral College being an effective means for deciding a presidential election, that would depend on the majority consensus; the provisions governing federal elections can be amended. I personally see it a good solution for this republic, but debating that would be appropriate under a dedicated thread. But, if you wish to debate it, review the reasoning that was applied when prescribing it that was outlined in the Federalist Papers... reasoning still applicable today; we are a republic, not a democracy by intent... why do you think that is?

 

The Electoral College is emphatically NOT what makes us a Republic. If you think it is you really need to read up on what a Republic and a Democracy is. Nothing like the EC was in Plato's description of The Republic

The reasons we are a Republic and not a Democracy are obvious to anyone who has done any reading on Periclean Athens, particularly the Death of Socrates.



The reasons we