[Wondergirl]

1. It is certainly true that women had many rights from the very beginning.

And those were? Cooking meals? Caring for the home? Being impregnated? Caring for the children?

[jlisenbe]

Owning property. Protections against theft, rape, murder, etc. Owning a business. "Life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness". AND they were not required to fight wars, toil in the fields, work 12 hour days in terrible conditions, etc. It was hard on everyone in those days. Very few lived a life of ease. Families had to work together to keep life in order.

[jlisenbe]

Still waiting to see any documentation for this material.

This US group (white evangelicals) has made itself more prominent by engaging in politics where their platform is based on Christian Nationalism – the US becoming a Christian country in governance.

Their chief mission is to prohibit abortion for any reason in the entire country.

More dangerous is their similar thinking to the Iran policy of executing those who show “enmity against God”. As an organization without power, they cannot (yet) carry out such a policy, but their theocratic beliefs completely support such a policy.

This policy is found in their belief that non-Christians will suffer for all eternity in a torture chamber (hell) for the crime of “enmity against God”. It is a small step once in power to implement this policy in the secular manner of judicial (official) murder.

[Wondergirl]

Owning property. Protections against theft, rape, murder, etc. Owning a business. "Life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness". AND they were not required to fight wars, toil in the fields, work 12 hour days in terrible conditions, etc. It was hard on everyone in those days. Very few lived a life of ease. Families had to work together to keep life in order.

Not when those words were first written. What changed?

[jlisenbe]

Not when those words were first written

Yes. From the very beginning.

[Wondergirl]

Yes. From the very beginning.

Why then was the 19th Amendment needed?

[jlisenbe]

The 19th Amendment gave women the right to vote. You will note that I mentioned nothing about voting. Most of what I mentioned was in state laws. Single women had advantages over married women depending on where they lived. I thought it was understood from the beginning of our discussion that women did not initially have the right to vote. Remember this? "It's also possible that it was an unfortunate sign of the times and had to be corrected, as it was, as time went by."

Owning property. Protections against theft, rape, murder, etc. Owning a business. "Life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness". AND they were not required to fight wars, toil in the fields, work 12 hour days in terrible conditions, etc. It was hard on everyone in those days. Very few lived a life of ease. Families had to work together to keep life in order.

[Wondergirl]

Thus, American women have always been equal to men (or even more advantaged in some areas) except as voters.

[jlisenbe]

I wouldn't say that. This is how I characterized it. "It is certainly true that women had many rights from the very beginning."

[Athos]

This is the "consent of the governed" passage. "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."

Had nothing to do with rights.

I will reply to your posts as noted by post number. I have read yours carefully. I trust you will do the same for mine.

Post # 38 (quoted immediately above).

Your conclusion is wrong. I.e., that the passage has nothing to do with rights. It has EVERYTHING to do with rights. When Jefferson writes that government derives its just POWERS from the consent of the governed, of course it includes its ability to make law. POWERS is a collective term referring to any and all government powers which certainly includes the rights encased in law.

When Jefferson writes of the "Creator", he is speaking as a Deist, not as a Christian. In fact, he said Paul was a corrupter of Jesus' message, declared the Book of Revelation was nonsense, and the Trinity was false. He was a non-Church-going Unitarian, primarily because Virginia had no Unitarian churches in his day. He even wrote a Gospel eliminating the miracles and admiring Jesus for his admonition to moral behavior.

Post # 27. I will reply to those comments you made in post # 27 to DW that you challenged. I will do it by numbered point by point so as not to take up so much space. Those interested can refer back to your post.

Point # 3. You called DW's evangelicals "unnamed". Not true. He named Bakker and Falwell.
Point # 4. You are asking for the specific science DW is referring to. You missed his point. He is referring to the general take from most scientists - not the technical aspects of the position. You can verify this yourself by a wide search on the internet using key words.
Point # 5. That seems to be directed at me. I refer you to my post #1 where I explain my reasoning based on white evangelicals attitude toward those who express enmity toward God. Hell is the analogy.
Point # 6. You are reading your reply literally without recourse to the people involved. For example, do you honestly believe Thomas Jefferson supported "life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness" to those people he enslaved? Do you really think those rights were unchangeable for his slaves? In fact, they weren't unchangeable at all, seeing that they were denied to millions.
Point #s 8,9,10, and 11. DW will have to answer these for himself (functioning brain of the fetus). I don't know what his reasoning is for this.

Finally, your post # 37.

You wrote: "If our rights are dependent on the views of the majority (consent of the governed), which fluctuates as the wind on the seashore, then we are in big trouble." That is precisely what a democracy depends on. Churchill said it was the worst from of government - except tor all the others. It has always relied on cooler and wiser heads prevailing. The electoral college is the prime example. However, this failed in 2015 by electing the worst demagogue in American history - it guaranteed the very thing it was designed to avoid. The nation isn't over it yet.

You further wrote: "No one has suggested the law is unchangeable so I don't know where that came from." It came from your very own comment. See point #6 in your post #37.

Next: "You do realize that the expression "consent of the governed" is found in the Declaration, a document which you said has no force of law? If that's the case, then why did you appeal to it?" Simple enough - because the consent of the governed is the basis of all law including rights granted by government. The social contract assumes/requires the consent be informed. Otherwise, bad government, bad law.

"Sorry, but you demolished nothing." Wrong. I continued to demolish your positions because, where possible, I based my positions on facts. When not possible, on rational grounds.

Words and phrases have nuanced meanings depending on context. This seems to be a difficulty with your understanding - both with the documents discussed and especially with your reading of the Bible. When you read so much on the surface or in a shallow fashion, you miss much of what is intended.

[jlisenbe]

Post 38. No, powers are the ability to govern and exercise authority. Rights refer to what inherently, in legal and moral power, rests with citizens. And since, as you now agree Jefferson said, they come from God, be that deist or whatever, they are not subject to the whims of the majority. The Creator does not have to be Deist. Might have been to Jefferson, but not to many of the other signatories. The concept was a brilliant retort to the proposition of the Divine Right of Kings, now replaced, according to the Declaration, by the divinely granted rights of individuals.

Post 27. Not a single evangelical leader has been named of whom it is documented that he supports the death penalty for "enmity against God" or death for adulteresses but not adulterers. It is an absurd allegation. Just throwing out names accomplishes nothing, and especially two people who have not exercised influence in 30 years. What you need is quotes from these people, and you have nothing to offer there. You have also just made broad claims about what scientists supposedly believe. DW claimed laws were based on science. Neither of you has offered even a whisper about how that might work. It's nonsense.

Post 37. "See point #6 in your post #37." Huh? That must have been a typo. Nothing of relevance in post 37. I think you are referring to this statement in post 9. "The founding fathers understood quite well that the rights upon which laws are based are God given and thus unchangeable." It is a clear reference to rights (not laws) being unchangeable, which is to say "certain unalienable rights." You failed to understand the point.

"the consent of the governed is the basis of all law including rights granted by government." Except that the very Declaration you are appealing to declared the exact opposite, saying that our rights come from a Creator and have not been simply "granted by government". It's why we are not a pure democracy. We are a Constitutional Republic, and in our system the rights we have cannot be simply swept away by the whims of the public. There is a painstaking process which must be gone through, at least if the rule of law is still prevailing. It's why super majorities are required to add or subtract rights.

Now you are right in the sense that, in practical terms, our government passes and abolishes laws routinely, and even the Constitution was a work of man including the Bill of Rights. But in a higher moral sense, the rights we enjoy, according to the Declaration, are not granted by government but rather by God.

Sorry, but you have demolished nothing. It seems to me that your positions are based on preconceived ideas and emotion rather than truth. The weakness of your arguments reinforce what you are trying to oppose.

[Athos]

"the consent of the governed is the basis of all law including rights granted by government." Except that the very Declaration you are appealing to declared the exact opposite, saying that our rights come from a Creator and have not been simply "granted by government"

You cite Jefferson, yet you cannot reconcile his words about rights with the FACT that he was a slaveholder denying rights to millions. Can you explain that?

in our system the rights we have cannot be simply swept away by the whims of the public. ... It's why super majorities are required to add or subtract rights.

Do you see the contradiction in your two statements? What is a super majority other than the public? Maybe informed, maybe a whim. We are certainly experiencing a public whim with Trump. The Trump public whim led directly to the reversal of Roe v Wade. I trust I don't have to connect the dots for you.

But in a higher moral sense, the rights we enjoy, according to the Declaration, are not granted by government but rather by God.

You have two problems with this statement. First, the Jefferson problem stated above. Second, you are injecting a religious faith into the equation. You need to prove that, and not with the words of a slaveholder.

It seems to me that your positions are based on preconceived ideas and emotion rather than truth.

You've got that exactly backwards. I rely on facts and rational discourse. You rely on magical thinking.

Your argument boils down to two "proofs". Jefferson, who was a smart man, but not infallible and whose words are tainted with the enormous fact of his being a slaveholder. The second is basing your position on religious faith without a scintilla of proof. You dissed the Divine Right of Kings, yet you are also claiming a religious support for yourself.

[jlisenbe]

You cite Jefferson, yet you cannot reconcile his words about rights with the FACT that he was a slaveholder denying rights to millions. Can you explain that?

You also cited Jefferson. Did you make the reconcilement? Why would we? I'm not advocating for him.

Do you see the contradiction in your two statements? What is a super majority other than the public?

Because in the context of changing the Constitution, it is not a super majority of the public. It is of the Congress and the states.

You have two problems with this statement. First, the Jefferson problem stated above. Second, you are injecting a religious faith into the equation. You need to prove that, and not with the words of a slaveholder.

I have proven by the text of the D of I that its 56 signers agreed that rights are granted by God and not by government. I'm sure they were all imperfect men as are you and I.

The argument has to do with your silly assertions about what evangelicals supposedly argue for. You have provided zero evidence for that. It is also unarguably true that the founders believed that rights are instituted by God and not by governments. I have claimed no "religious support for myself". I am not arguing for myself in any way. I'm simply pointing out that your claims about "white evangelicals" are not based on facts. If you still claim that to be the case, then this is your opportunity to provide quotes from these people to that effect. If you can't, and you can't, then at least admit to it.

[Athos]

You also cited Jefferson. Did you make the reconcilement?

You cited him as proof of God instituting rights. I cited him as proof of rights being derived from the consent of the governed. HUGE difference.

Because in the context of changing the Constitution, it is not a super majority of the public. It is of the Congress and the states.

Congress and the states are made up from the public.

I have proven by the text of the D of I that its 56 signers agreed that rights are granted by God and not by government.

That is NOT a proof. That is a religious argument for which you have not the slightest idea what all 56 signers of the document believed. Many of them, like Jefferson, did NOT believe in the God of the Bible. Even if all 56 WERE Bible-totin' believers, that would still NOT constitute proof that rights are instituted by God.

The argument has to do with your silly assertions about what evangelicals supposedly argue for. You have provided zero evidence for that.

My "silly" assertions are self-evident. The basis is your assertion that Hell exists. That's another discussion. You may state your position in another thread if you wish.

It is also unarguably true that the founders believed that rights are instituted by God and not by governments.

Nonsense. Nothing "inarguable" about it. As stated above, you have no idea what they all thought. When Jefferson said "Creator", and you say "God", they are not the same. Jefferson didn't believe in your "God". This is a striking example of your demonstrated difficulty in understanding the nuances of similar words based on context.

I have claimed no "religious support for myself".

Of course, you have! Your entire argument is based on God granting rights - not the consent of the governed.

I am not arguing for myself in any way.

You are arguing for your position. Please stop playing word games.

I'm simply pointing out that your claims about "white evangelicals" are not based on facts.

My white evangelical points are from their stated Bible beliefs. They make no attempt to hide those beliefs. Believing in Hell in the afterlife is not opposed to believing punishment in this life for different beliefs. Examples abound in the Old Testament of your God doing exactly that.

Christian Nationalists are defined by wanting this nation to be a "Christian" nation. That leads to certain primitive mindsets as we are witnessing in another nation undergoing the throes of theocratic Islam.

If you still claim that to be the case, (claims not based on facts)

Exactly what claims have I made that are not based on facts?

[jlisenbe]

You cited him as proof of God instituting rights.

I did not. I cited a document agreed to by 56 founders as evidence. It does not "prove" that the idea is true, but it does "prove" that 56 founders agreed with it since they all signed it, and it "proves" that they believed religion has a place in the formulation of law. They put their lives on the line and several suffered terrible loss. It is not true to simply contend that Jefferson "wrote" that document. He did write it, but then it was subject to extensive review which continued until all 56 signers could agree with it. To suggest they blindly signed is just inaccurate. Might add that at the time of the signing of the Declaration, Jefferson was a self-confessed Christian.

Let's make this simple. You have asserted that "white evangelicals" support "executing those who show 'enmity against God'”. DW added that they want to execute adulteresses but not adulterers. I say that is nonsense and have challenged you to show documentation for it. You have not even attempted to do so since you know you can't. Citing names or claiming it is "self evident" because they believe in the Bible is just silliness. If you can ever show any serious evidence that it's true, then we can continue. You can't, so that's basically that. You would need, "I say that all of those who show enmity against God should be executed," or words to that effect from prominent evangelical leaders or better yet, from leading evangelical groups. You can't present anything of the sort, so that's done.

The other issue was DW's claim that laws are based on science and that religion has no place in that process. To refute that I appealed to the Declaration. It plainly shows that 56 Founders agreed that our rights come from God with no mention of science. Neither of you has offered a scintilla of evidence to support your idea, nor any explanation of how science can show us that laws against rape, murder, theft, and so forth should be enacted. It just strikes me as a silly argument that the Declaration itself illustrates as wrong.

So show us the evidence. Show quotes from prominent evangelicals showing they want to see what you claim, or explain how science can give us laws. We wait patiently.

My arguments have to do with ideas and not with any personal well-being or, for that matter, any personal feelings.

[dwashbur]

Lots to go through here, but I couldn't let this go by.

If as you say, religion has no place in the formulation of law, how do you explain this? "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." The founding fathers understood quite well that the rights upon which laws are based are God given and thus unchangeable. Without those God-given rights, there is no foundation for law. Note that there was no appeal to science but rather to religion, the very opposite of what you advocate.

Wrong again. You have no understanding of the founders' religious beliefs. These guys were not Christians, they were deists. Oversimplified, they believed in a God that created the universe, set it in motion, then went on vacation and really couldn't care less what it does. "Creator" was a nebulous, flexible concept to them and could mean anything from the Jewish God to Tao to natural processes, they each pretty much had their own definition. It did not mean what you mean when you use the word. I suggest you look that up. They were children of their age, which is commonly known as the Enlightenment. It was a time when rationality was supplanting religious belief in the quest for truth, and those gentlemen were right in the big fat middle of it, cheering it on.

Your simplistic approach to these things doesn't get you to the truth.

[Athos]

Wrong again. You have no understanding of the founders' religious beliefs. These guys were not Christians, they were deists. Oversimplified, they believed in a God that created the universe, set it in motion, then went on vacation and really couldn't care less what it does. "Creator" was a nebulous, flexible concept to them and could mean anything from the Jewish God to Tao to natural processes, they each pretty much had their own definition. It did not mean what you mean when you use the word.

Your simplistic approach to these things doesn't get you to the truth.

You made two of the same points I made, only your "Creator" lines were far better than mine. Thank you.

Your second thought about his "simplistic approach" has been a problem for a very long time here.

I will now decide whether to reply to the rest of his post - time permitting.

[jlisenbe]

Wrong again. You have no understanding of the founders' religious beliefs. These guys were not Christians, they were deists. Oversimplified, they believed in a God that created the universe, set it in motion, then went on vacation and really couldn't care less what it does. "Creator" was a nebulous, flexible concept to them and could mean anything from the Jewish God to Tao to natural processes, they each pretty much had their own definition. It did not mean what you mean when you use the word. I suggest you look that up. They were children of their age, which is commonly known as the Enlightenment. It was a time when rationality was supplanting religious belief in the quest for truth, and those gentlemen were right in the big fat middle of it, cheering it on.

First of all, that is flatly untrue. Not even Jefferson was a Deist at the time of the writing of the Declaration. Many of the signers were Congregationalists (a Protestant denomination) while most were Episcopalians. Neither group is Deist.

But even if that was true, it is still an appeal to religion in the declaration of rights, and that is the beginning of all law. It completely refutes your contention.

You have yet to explain your idea that science can mandate passing laws against murder, rape, theft, slander, etc. This has to be the fourth or fifth time I've asked this. Why the dodge?

I'm disappointed in you. I did not expect you to just spout the party line. But at least your cheerleader is still active.

[jlisenbe]

This is the text of the Congressional Prayer Proclamation of 1779, just three years after the Declaration. It is definitely not a Deist prayer (then went on vacation and really couldn't care less what it does).

THAT it be recommended to the several States to appoint the First Thursday in May next to be a Day of Fasting, Humiliation, and Prayer to Almighty God, that he will be pleased to avert those impending Calamities which we have but too well deserved: That he will grant us his Grace to repent of our Sins, and amend our Lives according to his Holy Word: That he will continue that wonderful Protection which hath led us through the Paths of Danger and Distress: That he will be a Husband to the Widow, and a Father to the fatherless Children, who weep over the Barbarities of a Savage Enemy: That he will grant us Patience in Suffering, and Fortitude in Adversity: That he will inspire us with Humility, Moderation, and Gratitude in prosperous Circumstances: That he will give Wisdom to our Councils, Firmness to our Resolutions, and Victory to our Arms: That he will bless the Labours of the Husbandman, and pour forth Abundance, so that we may enjoy the Fruits of the Earth in due Season: That he will cause Union, Harmony, and mutual Confidence to prevail throughout these States: That he will bestow on our great Ally all those Blessings which may enable him to be gloriously instrumental in protecting the Rights of Mankind, and promoting the Happiness of his Subjects: That he will bountifully continue his paternal Care to the Commander in Chief, and the Officers and Soldiers of the United States: That he will grant the Blessings of Peace to all contending Nations, Freedom to those who are in Bondage, and Comfort to the Afflicted: That he will diffuse Useful Knowledge, extend the Influence of True Religion, and give us that Peace of Mind which the World cannot give: That he will be our Shield in the Day of Battle, our Comforter in the Hour of Death, and our kind Parent and merciful Judge through Time and through Eternity.

[jlisenbe]

The Virginia Declaration, which predated the Declaration, identified the "Creator".

That religion, or the duty which we owe to our Creator, and the manner of discharging it, can be directed only by reason and conviction, not by force or violence; and therefore all men are equally entitled to the free exercise of religion, according to the dictates of conscience; and that it is the mutual duty of all to practise Christian forbearance, love, and charity toward each other.

Strange words for Deists. What duty could be owed to an impersonal God who neither knows nor cares what we do? Why would they have had a duty to practice Christian virtues?

I've been on this site long enough to know these questions, as well as several others that have been posed, will not be addressed. There will only be vague appeals to "simplistic" thinking or supposedly "self-evident" truths. Too bad.