MandM header image 2

An Interesting Comparison

February 4th, 2016 by Matt

This from Occupy Democrats:

12647129_1058653647561022_4746717199189857381_n

This from the Unites States Founding Fathers:

When in the Course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another, and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature’s God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.

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. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security…

We, therefore, the Representatives of the united States of America, in General Congress, Assembled, appealing to the Supreme Judge of the world for the rectitude of our intentions, do, in the Name, and by Authority of the good People of these Colonies, solemnly publish and declare, That these United Colonies are, and of Right ought to be Free and Independent States; that they are Absolved from all Allegiance to the British Crown, and that all political connection between them and the State of Great Britain, is and ought to be totally dissolved; and that as Free and Independent States, they have full Power to levy War, conclude Peace, contract Alliances, establish Commerce, and to do all other Acts and Things which Independent States may of right do. And for the support of this Declaration, with a firm reliance on the protection of divine Providence, we mutually pledge to each other our Lives, our Fortunes and our sacred Honor. (emphasis mine)

Oceania is at war with Eastasia. Oceania has always been at war with Eastasia.

Tags:   · · 5 Comments

5 responses so far ↓

  • Seems the “bad reasoning” is yours, and of course, Cruz’s. This is,as you state, The Declaration of Independence, most emphatically NOT the constitution. There is an 11 year gap between those documents.

    So, as usual, Cruz was caught in a flat out lie. You will not find similar wording in The US Constitution.

    No of times the following words appear in the US Constitution.

    God = 0
    Religion = 1
    Divine Providence = 0
    Jesus = 0

    Yes, an interesting comparison of US Constitutional knowledge between an Australian atheist and a POTUS candidate who is A Xtian first, American second and who does not know his Constitution.

  • David you write

    Seems the “bad reasoning” is yours, and of course, Cruz’s. This is,as you state, The Declaration of Independence, most emphatically NOT the constitution. There is an 11 year gap between those documents. So, as usual, Cruz was caught in a flat out lie. You will not find similar wording in The US Constitution.

    That might be a good point, if the quote I attribute to Cruz stated that the word God was in the Constitution. But if you read the blog post you’ll see no such claim was made, the statement by Cruz simply states that “our rights come from God” not from the constitution. Pointing out that the Constitution doesn’t mention God does nothing to refute this claim.

    As to the declaration of independence, that was in response to Occupy democrats who suggested that the founding fathers would role in their grave at the suggestion that rights come from God not the constitution and here again the fact God isn’t mentioned in the Constitution isn’t really relevant, because the question isn’t what words are in the constitution, but rather what the founding fathers at the time believed. Again if you had simply read the post before you wrote you’d see this.

    The declaration of independence shows that Occupy democrats are simply mistaken. Because it shows that, as you say, a year prior to the constitution, the “representatives of the united States of America in General Congress” were all willing to ratify a declaration which explicitly stated certain right already existed, were were endowed, by a creator and grounded in the laws of nature and natures God, the suggested that governments were instituted to protect these rights which already existed due to God.

    This of course isn’t suprising, the claim that rights were based in God not the state was affirmed by many of the influential political theorists of the time such Samuel Pufendorf and John Locke and had both claimed this. Edmund Burke the great conservative intellectual of the same period as the founding of the US had affirmed this. William Paley the author of the major ethics textbook in ethics at the same time had defended this thesis and the leading Moral Philosopher of the period Immanuel Kant had argued that commitment to morality was rationally unstable if you denied the existence of God. Similarly the most important text of English common law by Blackstone put forward the same view.

    So sorry, the idea that the idea that rights are based in God and not the state was actually mainstream idea in the late 18th century and the founders, contrary to Occupy democrats explicitly affirmed this thesis. This I think is an unfortunate case of people rewriting the past to fit the future, hence by reference to Orwell.

    Yes, an interesting comparison of US Constitutional knowledge between an Australian atheist and a POTUS candidate who is A Xtian first, American second and who does not know his Constitution.

    Given that Cruz didn’t in the quote above actually say anything about the constitution this is really just down to bad reading on your part.

    But if you want to claim that you know more about the constitution, than a person who did there thesis at Princeton on the thought of Madison, has a doctor in Jurisprudence from Harvard law school, is a former editor of both the Harvard Law review and Harvard journal of Law and Public Policy, a former solicitor general, and has argued more cases before the supreme court than any other lawyer in the United States, then knock your self out.
    I am inclined to think claims from a random atheist in Australia to that effect are probably hubris to be taken with a grain of salt. Especially when the only point you make is to object to a statement to both Cruz and myself a statement we never even made.

    While I don’t agree with Cruz on everything, the suggestion that he is some ignoramus about constitution and constitutional law strikes me as pretty obviously false.

  • Cruz said “Our rights come from god, not the constitution.” He did not say our rights come from god, not the declaration of independence. Therefore, quoting the DoI is muddying the waters.

    To the best of my knowledge, there 56 final signatures to the declaration of independence, 40 signers of the US constitution and only 6 who signed both making your reliance on the declaration of independence futile.

    The founding fathers would, if they could, roll in their graves. How many were practicing Christians? How many were deists? They may have accepted some form of god like being, but were not believers in the christian god.

    But, regardless of the individual views of the founders, the world has moved on in the last 200 odd years and fewer people adhere to religious viewpoints.

    And even 200 odd years ago there is so much in the US Constitution that is in direct opposition to that contained in the Bible. The writers of the constitution were well aware of the harm unbridled religion would cause and set about to find a way that individual believers could be free to worship as they felt fit but that neither alone nor in concert, could they force the government’s hand.

  • Cruz said “Our rights come from god, not the constitution.” He did not say our rights come from god, not the declaration of independence. Therefore, quoting the DoI is muddying the waters..

    Yes, Cruz used the “word” constitution, in the statement I quoted. But the fact he used the word “constitution” doesn’t mean he claimed that the word God occurs in the constitution.

    In fact, if you read what he said in context his claim about the constitution was not that it contains the word God, but its not where peoples rights come from. That seems pretty plausible, if the right to life and liberty comes from the constitution then it follows that, if the constitution were amended or changed, it would be morally permissible to kill and enslave people.

    As to the Dol muddying the waters, that simply doesn’t follow, What Occupy democrats said, was that the founding fathers would “roll in there graves” at the suggestion that rights come from God. The DOI shows that’s false, it shows in fact that many of the founders willingly declared and embraced that position.
    Is it your contention that the founding fathers would roll in there grave at the DOI, and repudiated what it says?

    “To the best of my knowledge, there 56 final signatures to the declaration of independence, 40 signers of the US constitution and only 6 who signed both making your reliance on the declaration of independence futile.”

    That simply doesn’t follow, the question is wether the declaration of independence represents the political thought of the founders or wether they would roll in their graves at what it said. How many people signed the constitution or DOI doesn’t really address this.

    The founding fathers would, if they could, roll in their graves. How many were practicing Christians? How many were deists? They may have accepted some form of god like being, but were not believers in the christian god.

    That’s again not the question, no one said they believed in the trinity and incarnation, the claim was they rejected the idea that our rights come from God, and that is false. Let me quote from Jefferson who was one of the most skeptical and anti-Christian of the founders.

    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 of 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 cannot sleep for ever: 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! The Almighty has no attribute which can take side with us in such a contest.

    Moreover, this isn’t a vague deism, the being in the DOI is said to be God, who is creator of human beings and nature, who has laid down laws, mention is made of divine providence and that he is the supreme judge of the world. Jefferson above, talks of God having attributes of justice and who will respond in wrath upon nations that violate the rights laid down by his law,
    So sorry, what Occupy democrats said is false. They claimed the founders believed X they believed the opposite.

    But, regardless of the individual views of the founders, the world has moved on in the last 200 odd years and fewer people adhere to religious viewpoints.

    First, its not actually true that in the “world” today ( as opposed to parts of the world like western Europe) fewer people adhere to religions. In fact, recent studies show that, outside of a few western nations, vast majority of the world do believe morality depends on God.

    Second, the fact people have “moved on” is simply a statement of fashion, the question that needs to be asked is why, is it because people came up with decisive refutations of the claim that morality depends on God, and have they come up with better alternative secular accounts of morality? Or is it simply the fashions changed.

    If the former then all your doing is blindly following some trendy western fads. If the latter then I am sorry but I think your just wrong, I have examined most of the literature on divine command ethics and haven’t found a decisive refuation anywhere, nor has secular meta ethics made a hell of a lot of progress in coming up with viable alternatives.

    And even 200 odd years ago there is so much in the US Constitution that is in direct opposition to that contained in the Bible. The writers of the constitution were well aware of the harm unbridled religion would cause and set about to find a way that individual believers could be free to worship as they felt fit but that neither alone nor in concert, could they force the government’s hand.

    That’s just an expression of faith in certain atheist memes, I can refer you to an article of Nick Wolterstorff where he goes through the arguments for religious freedom used by the founders, in fact they are all based on the idea people have a duty to worship God, as to the claim “unbridled religion does harm” that’s just an unsubstantiated claim, the claim that religious beliefs are somehow more dangerous or harmful than the multitude of secular moral and political beliefs out there is just a claim that has never been demonstrated. In fact its pretty easy to show that some religious beliefs like say the beliefs of Quakers about war are benign compared to say secular Marxist beliefs about establishing a dictatorship of the proletariat by armed revolution.

  • Thanks, Matt. I’m an atheist but I understood what Cruz meant and the outrage from the internet atheists was ridiculous.

    I don’t want a president that thinks our rights come from the constitution. Why should anyone want that? That means the government can change them.

    I’d much rather have a Christian president that thinks our rights come from God rather than an atheist president that thinks rights don’t exist or basis their understanding of rights on some hedonist doctrine of utility.