Re: Stereotypes and reputations

From: Pim van Meurs <>
Date: Sat Aug 06 2005 - 17:12:25 EDT

janice matchett wrote:

> At 04:47 PM 8/6/2005, Pim van Meurs wrote:
>>> ### /So you agree with the Framers of America's founding documents
>>> that it is a self-evident truth that man's rights are inalienable
>>> because they are God-given? ~ Janice
>> I fail to see the relevance of this question. I find mixing religion
>> and politics detrimental to both, just like mixing science and
>> religion. Which is why I appreciate the first amendment. In history
>> one can appreciate their comments but the importance of the
>> constitution is far further reaching than a single quote.
> ## Our Constitution is a meaningless document unless it''s guarding
> the self-evident (absolute ) truth that man's rights come from his
> Creator and not from the governments instituted by men.
> Either man's rights come from God or they come from other men.
Or other God(s)? Or from Nature as the founders so clearly envisioned.
You see, your position, while understandable is logical flawed. Too

> This phrase "law of nature" was explained by Blackstone a little
> earlier in his "Commentary on Law" in the following manner:
> *"This law of nature, being coeval with mankind and dictated by God
> himself, is of course superior in obligation to any other. It is
> binding over all the globe in all countries, and at all times; no
> human laws are of any validity, if contrary to this: and such of them
> as are valid derive all their force, and all their authority,
> mediately or immediately, from this original."
> *Janice

Sure, we all have our own interpretations of this Law of nature. But
let's not confuse private viewpoints with logical or even tenable ones.
The founders presented a foundation which includes all viewpoints with
equal validity.
Received on Sat Aug 6 17:13:40 2005

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.8 : Sat Aug 06 2005 - 17:13:40 EDT