Re: Stereotypes and reputations

From: Pim van Meurs <pimvanmeurs@yahoo.com>
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
dialectic.

> 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