Rights. Real Things or Soothing Noises?

_{Barry Arrington

July 4, 2020

Intelligent Design}

Share: Facebook; Twitter; LinkedIn; Flipboard; Print; Email

A friend writes on Facebook:

“Life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness” and “with liberty and justice for all” still seem like pretty good concepts to build a country around. Lets start living it. Happy 4th everyone!

To which I responded that I agree wholeheartedly. But I would add that both of the quotations have context that is essential. Where do the rights to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness come from? Men are “endowed by their creator” with those rights. And we are a nation “under God,” with liberty and justice for all.

All politics is downstream from culture. Culture is downstream from shared views about fundamental metaphysical ideas. And ideas about the existence of God are the most fundamental of all. Richard Dawkins, the world’s most famous atheist, says: “The universe that we observe has precisely the properties we should expect if there is, at bottom, no design, no purpose, no evil, no good, nothing but pitiless indifference.”

Dawkins is wrong about that. The universe we observe is full of evil. But evil can exist only if good — of which evil is the privation — also exists. And good can exist only if God exists. I have spent decades debating these issues. Today, I am more firmly convinced than ever that our rights are secure only if they rest on a foundation of God’s existence. For if God does not exist, Dawkins is surely right and all of this rights talk amounts to nothing but soothing noises one animal makes to another.

Some might respond: We can have good without God. Of course, that depends on what you mean by “good.” If “good” means only “that which at a given point in time a particular society calls good,” then a 21st century liberal democracy is “good.” But so is a 15th century Aztec society that captured, enslaved, and ritually sacrificed members of other tribes. We can call Aztec human sacrifice evil and the principles of the Declaration good in any meaningful sense of those words only if there is an objective standard of measure by which to judge between the two. And that standard exists only if a God who has endowed His image bearers with certain inalienable rights exists.

And thankfully He does. As Sam said, happy 4th!

Comments

BA, I would remark from a somewhat different angle (I guess, using my "privilege" as descendant of slaves and slave holders). I find that Jefferson was a man sufficiently committed to truth and to the naturally evident moral creation order, that he was willing to speak truth beyond what he could or did do; and yes, he was hopelessly indebted and trapped in a web of laws. Did so, in a key draft for a pivotal state document, and had considerable support. A painful strategic compromise was struck, but the principles were preserved even at expense of opening the founders up to the charge of hypocrisy levelled at the time and ever since. Yes, failure to responsibly resolve the matter (even with repeated examples on the table of Emancipation) cost hundreds of thousands of lives. But they stuck to their guns: it is self evident that we are created equal and are endowed with built in thus "unalienable" rights, starting with life and liberty. In a day where in 40+ years 800+ millions have been slaughtered in the womb under false colour of law and rights, I freely conclude that rhetoric trying to besmirch men better than we are is instantly self refuting by way of absurdity. We would do far better to heed their moral courage and examine our own far worse failing: enabling holocaust. Then, perhaps, having found out how hard it is to undergo plank removal eye-surgery, we will be better equipped to appreciate men who blazed a trail of reform and opened up self government of a free people. KFkairosfocus_{July 6, 2020
July
07
Jul
6
06
2020
03:04 PM
3
03
04
PM
PDT}

JVL:
Okay, how do you think black folks in America politically gained their right to life and liberty?
It depends on what you mean by "gained." As a matter of substance, their right to life and liberty was endowed on them by their creator, just as the Declaration said. That the founders failed to live up to their own principles is not a secret. Operationally, their rights were secured by the sacrifices of hundreds of thousands of mostly white northerners. This too is widely known.
If it was promised in the US Constitution then why did it take almost 100 years for it to be acknowledged?
It is widely known that the 1789 constitution did not provide for the freedom of the slaves, and this is why the 13th Amendment was passed.
If it was from another, older source then why did it take more than 100 years to be acknowledged.
Because the founders failed to live up to their own principles.Barry Arrington_{July 6, 2020
July
07
Jul
6
06
2020
02:07 PM
2
02
07
PM
PDT}

Seversky: I agree with Dawkins that good and evil are not properties of the universe as a whole but they do describe how humans behave towards one another, Oh so that means that good and evil have nothing to do with thoughts or intentions irregardless of whether those thoughts are acted upon. How simplistically novel. Supposedly it would also exclude relevance to the possibility of the mental states of disembodied existence of which science has no way of ruling out, beyond being philosophically committed. I'm no philosopher but I think there is plenty of philosophical basis in the literature indicating that questions of good and evil are inescapable for all sentient beings. There is plenty of basis also in consciousness research and this has been discussed by Stanislav Grof. In short, in the research into mental health and mental illness, there is no way around the role of good and evil in the universal scheme of things, which helps explain the utter failure of reductionist science for elucidating the roots of mental suffering. See Realms Of The Human Unconscious by Grofgroovamos_{July 6, 2020
July
07
Jul
6
06
2020
01:57 PM
1
01
57
PM
PDT}

Upright Biped, You still haven't explained why you chose to mock Union soldiers' bravery--and not just Union soldiers, but the abolitionists in their tireless political campaign. Again, taking what you wrote in context:
Says the guy who’s worldview propels the idea that the only reason black people in America have any right to life and liberty is because white people in America decided to give it to them. To admit to this distortion in reality is sold as being brave.
No, Union soldiers bravely fought against the horror of slavery--they died in large numbers to free African Americans and to recognize and restore their God-given rights. They didn't just "decide" or "agree" to "give" freedom to African Americans. If you know anything about this history, you'd know that it was a long and bitter struggle originally started by the British politician, William Wilberforce, who became inspired by his conversion to the Christian faith, and who fought politically the rest of his life to have slavery banned in the British Empire. The abolitionist movement took root in America and many Christians worked hard to free African Americans either individually or through political action. Mockery of this epic struggle is completely inappropriate by calling it a distortion and being "sold" as bravery. Please read Frederick Douglass' book that I recommended. An excellent book about the political struggle is "The Coming Fury" by Bruce Catton. Please read up on this "distortion" as you called it. -QQuerius_{July 6, 2020
July
07
Jul
6
06
2020
01:43 PM
1
01
43
PM
PDT}

Upright BiPed: To think that white people gave black people in America their right to life and liberty by an act of agreeing to it is a distortion of the highest order, and materialists like Sev like to promote themselves as being brave intellectuals who acknowledge that gross distortion as reality. Okay, how do you think black folks in America politically gained their right to life and liberty? If it was promised in the US Constitution then why did it take almost 100 years for it to be acknowledged? If it was from another, older source then why did it take more than 100 years to be acknowledged. And, even then, why only men of a certain age?JVL_{July 6, 2020
July
07
Jul
6
06
2020
01:25 PM
1
01
25
PM
PDT}

.
Then please explain how your statement
Sure. It’s just as I already told you: To think that white people gave black people in America their right to life and liberty by an act of agreeing to it is a distortion of the highest order, and materialists like Sev like to promote themselves as being brave intellectuals who acknowledge that gross distortion as reality. In other words, it doesn’t have a thing to do with union soldiers or justifying the south. That was all you.Upright BiPed_{July 6, 2020
July
07
Jul
6
06
2020
11:57 AM
11
11
57
AM
PDT}

Upright Biped, Then please explain how your statement
To admit to this distortion in reality is sold as being brave.
doesn't mock the bravery of Union soldiers fighting and dying in unprecedented numbers to free African-American slaves. I'm listening. Oh, and I wasn't referring to Frederick Douglass's speech referenced above. I was referring to his book and his addendum on Christianity. If you care about the injustice done against African Americans, you might consider ordering the book and reading it. It's not a long book. -QQuerius_{July 6, 2020
July
07
Jul
6
06
2020
11:28 AM
11
11
28
AM
PDT}

. Quesrius, that’s pretty poor. Faced with the clear reality that you completely misunderstood my comment (the exact opposite of your assumptions), you simply seek to justify yourself anyway. I am happy to let it stand as it is. btw, Frederick Douglass’s profound speech (upthread) I read for the first time 40+ years ago. I read it (among other things from the era) in connection with a book I was reading at the time, the horrific life of a prince from Senegal who had a fluent European education, and was sold into slavery in the south.Upright BiPed_{July 6, 2020
July
07
Jul
6
06
2020
10:18 AM
10
10
18
AM
PDT}

But you still said
To admit to this distortion in reality is sold as being brave.
The "distortion" that you project on Seversky, that "white" Union soldiers actually freed African-American slaves and that his distortion is being sold as "being brave," demonstrates more than your disapproval to Seversky's narrative. Sadly, this is exactly the type of subtle self-justification that I encountered from the few bitterly racist people that I had the misfortune encounter in the South. They call it "The War of Northern Aggression." No, you're wrong, Upright Biped. The mostly white Union soldiers were indeed brave in the face of the unprecedented slaughter called the Civil War, and the Union did indeed recognize and forcibly put an end to the inhuman institution called slavery. Please read the books I suggested to get a better understanding of why most Americans indeed found slavery intolerable and were willing to fight for the freedom of African-American slaves. Their sacrifice should be honored, not mocked. -QQuerius_{July 6, 2020
July
07
Jul
6
06
2020
09:38 AM
9
09
38
AM
PDT}

. Querius, Let me explain something that you might have missed. Seversky is a man who believes that there are no intrinsic or inherent values in the universe, or anything within the universe. He sees it that any moral standards in any given society come only from an agreement of people in that society, not from any transcendent moral reality. He refers to it by the sciencey-sounding brand ”consensus theory” and sells himself as a brave intellectual prepared to acknowledge the dirty truth. Thus, the only reason blacks in America have any right to life and liberty is because the white people in America agreed to give it to them. I clearly reject that idea (as most people do) and frankly don’t care if you or anyone else has a problem with that rejection. It is not subject to change. However, how you go from that to “justifying the south” or “mocking union soldiers” is something I am not entirely sure I could ever grasp. I’d like to believe you simply blew it in reading comprehension in this instance, but I do not know that to be the case. You’ll have to explain it to me.Upright BiPed_{July 6, 2020
July
07
Jul
6
06
2020
09:16 AM
9
09
16
AM
PDT}

. Quesrius, What in the world are you talking about?Upright BiPed_{July 6, 2020
July
07
Jul
6
06
2020
08:23 AM
8
08
23
AM
PDT}

Upright Biped, While I think I understand your attempt at justifying the South in the Civil War by mocking the bravery of Union soldiers to set the slaves free, I'd suggest you consider reading Frederick Douglass's book, Narrative of the Life of an American Slave, especially his addendum about Christianity. It's available on Amazon: https://www.amazon.com/dp/B008TVEC4W/ref=dp-kindle-redirect?_encoding=UTF8&btkr=1 Regarding the difference in plantation slavery in the New World, another good book you might consider is The Peculiar Institution by Kenneth Stampp. With some education, maybe you'll be able to recognize the exceptional horror of plantation slavery and the justified fight against it. I hope you do this. -QQuerius_{July 6, 2020
July
07
Jul
6
06
2020
08:01 AM
8
08
01
AM
PDT}

.
If we are to live up to the standards set by the Founding Fathers, it is no honor to their memory to allow the good to blind us to the bad.
Says the guy who's worldview propels the idea that the only reason black people in America have any right to life and liberty is because white people in America decided to give it to them. To admit to this distortion in reality is sold as being brave.Upright BiPed_{July 6, 2020
July
07
Jul
6
06
2020
06:14 AM
6
06
14
AM
PDT}

BA, here is an anchor-point:
We can readily identify at least seven inescapable first duties of reason. Inescapable, as they are so antecedent to reasoning that even the objector implicitly appeals to them; i.e. they are self-evident. Duties, to truth, to right reason, to prudence, to sound conscience, to neighbour, so also to fairness and justice etc. Such built in law is not invented by parliaments or courts, nor can these principles and duties be abolished by such. (Cf. Cicero in De Legibus, c. 50 BC.) Indeed, it is on this framework that we can set out to soundly understand and duly balance rights, freedoms and duties; which is justice. The legitimate main task of government, then, is to uphold and defend the civil peace of justice through sound community order reflecting the built in, intelligible law of our nature. Where, as my right implies your duty a true right is a binding moral claim to be respected in life, liberty, honestly aquired property, innocent reputation etc. To so justly claim a right, one must therefore demonstrably be in the right. Thus, too, we may compose sound civil law informed by that built-in law of our responsibly, rationally free morally governed nature; from such, we may identify what is unsound or false thus to be reformed or replaced even though enacted under the colour and solemn ceremonies of law.
KFkairosfocus_{July 6, 2020
July
07
Jul
6
06
2020
04:56 AM
4
04
56
AM
PDT}

MatSpirit, Miss the point much? You are doing the very thing your metaphysical premises prevent you from doing. I know you can't help yourself. But the logical incoherence of judging while denying there is any standard by which to judge is there just the same.Barry Arrington_{July 6, 2020
July
07
Jul
6
06
2020
04:29 AM
4
04
29
AM
PDT}

When someone claims, as Seversky has claimed here at UD many time before, there is no moral truth (because morality in his view it is “subjective”) he is making a universal truth claim about moral truth which is obviously self-refuting. By analogy he is making a claim like, “This sentence is false.” Morality is useless and meaningless unless it is about interpersonal moral obligation. The golden rule is one such moral principle which meaningless unless there really is interpersonal moral obligation. Seversky’s subjective beliefs and opinions carry no such moral obligation. If he claims they do he is contradicting himself. Of course, I suppose he has a right to believe whatever foolish nonsense he wishes to believe, but there is no obligation for me or anyone else to take him seriously. Secondly, if his “morality” is completely subjective then he is the one who sets the moral standards for himself. His moral standards don’t apply to anyone else. How could they? Finally, to have any type of meaningful discussion about morality, it has to be honest. Honesty requires an objective standard-- doesn’t it? But by whose standard? Yours, mine or somebody else’s? Unless there is a non-arbitrary or objective standard of honesty any discussion or debate about morality and ethics is totally meaningless. Why should I trust anyone unless I know he/she is being completely honest? But how can I know that they are being honest unless there is an objective standard of honesty? So why does Seversky even bother? Why does he continue argue that something that only he believes must be believed by everyone else? Again that is a self-refuting if not an irrational and absurd position.john_a_designer_{July 6, 2020
July
07
Jul
6
06
2020
03:30 AM
3
03
30
AM
PDT}

Seversky states: "If we are to live up to the standards set by the Founding Fathers, it is no honor to their memory to allow the good to blind us to the bad." On the contrary, the standards they set was that any government can become tyrannical, because power is a corrupting force on man. They new bad elements would impact the government in time, which is the primary reason for restricting it the way they did. Government was viewed as a necessary evil that should be bound tightly by the people. Other revolutions did not think of the worst of themselves coming to power, like Robespierre and Stalin, but believed the best of themselves would rise above their nature. Those who want the government to act as it wishes might as well hold up a sign saying liberty be damned. The more powerful a government becomes, the fewer liberties there are as a result.BobRyan_{July 5, 2020
July
07
Jul
5
05
2020
11:15 PM
11
11
15
PM
PDT}

Sev@14, thank you for the quote from Frederick Douglas. I think they say it all.Mac McTavish_{July 5, 2020
July
07
Jul
5
05
2020
06:18 PM
6
06
18
PM
PDT}

Some time ago I had this exchange with someone here at UD. The questioner asked:
Didn’t Nietzsche say as much and also claim that our Christian-based morality would fall by the wayside because God is dead? I never read his writing, but only commentary on his works.
I replied, Here is a quote from his short tract or booklet, Twilight of the Idols, which speaks to that.
When we renounce the Christian faith, we abandon all right to Christian morality… Christianity is a system, a complete outlook upon the world, conceived as a whole. If its leading concept, the belief in God, is wrenched from it, the whole is destroyed; nothing vital remains in our grasp. Christianity presupposes that man does not and cannot know what is good or bad for him: the Christian believes in God who, alone, can know these things. Christian morality is a command, its origin is transcendental. It is beyond all criticism, all right to criticism; it is true only on condition that God is truth,--it stands or falls with the belief in God.
But if we reject a morality that is based on some sort higher transcendent good as Nietzcche wanted to do, with what do we replace it? That is a question for which atheistic naturalists/materialists do not appear to have an adequate answer-- or if they do it is not forthcoming. For our atheist interlocutors: The question in not whether atheists can live conventionally moral lives. I believe many can and do. The question is whether you as an atheist have any kind of sufficient basis for any kind of morality at all. If you do tell us what it is. Showing up here and obfuscating about morality does not accomplish anything. All it does is waste peoples time, which ironically is neither respectful nor ethical.john_a_designer_{July 5, 2020
July
07
Jul
5
05
2020
05:37 PM
5
05
37
PM
PDT}

News: "Without a concept of God, one cannot found a concept of good vs. evil. Everything turns out to depend on power vs. powerless instead." Talk about building your morals on sand! Those 15th century Aztecs Barry was talking about certainly thought they were highly moral because their god demanded human sacrifices and they sacrificed hundreds of thousands of people to him. Of course, your god is much nicer than that. He only killed off the entire human race, sans Noah and his family. But I'm sure there weren't many people alive back then and every one of them was evil and deserved to drown, especially the children and babies. And the fetuses. They were evil fetuses. Just as nasty as the babes in arms. And we won't even discuss the children. All evil in God's sight. If you'd like to go on talking about God's morals, I'd be happy to accomodate you, but I warn you that I have a copy of God's word and a lot of your readers might be shocked and offended by what's in it. For instance, how many times did God harden Pharoh's heart so he'd keep the Israelites in captivity long enough for God to bring another catastrophe on Egypt and, more important, why? The answers are in Exodus and I'd love to lead a Bible study on that and much more for UD readers and abettors.MatSpirit_{July 5, 2020
July
07
Jul
5
05
2020
05:16 PM
5
05
16
PM
PDT}

From Texas- the winning sand sculpture An Instant Classic- Facepalm AbeET_{July 5, 2020
July
07
Jul
5
05
2020
03:17 PM
3
03
17
PM
PDT}

The following are passages from a speech delivered by Frederick Douglass in 1852, titled "What to the Slave is the Fourth of July?"
Fellow Citizens, I am not wanting in respect for the fathers of this republic. The signers of the Declaration of Independence were brave men. They were great men too — great enough to give fame to a great age. It does not often happen to a nation to raise, at one time, such a number of truly great men. The point from which I am compelled to view them is not, certainly, the most favorable; and yet I cannot contemplate their great deeds with less than admiration. They were statesmen, patriots and heroes, and for the good they did, and the principles they contended for, I will unite with you to honor their memory. They loved their country better than their own private interests; and, though this is not the highest form of human excellence, all will concede that it is a rare virtue, and that when it is exhibited, it ought to command respect. He who will, intelligently, lay down his life for his country, is a man whom it is not in human nature to despise. Your fathers staked their lives, their fortunes, and their sacred honor, on the cause of their country. In their admiration of liberty, they lost sight of all other interests. They were peace men; but they preferred revolution to peaceful submission to bondage. They were quiet men; but they did not shrink from agitating against oppression. They showed forbearance; but that they knew its limits. They believed in order; but not in the order of tyranny. With them, nothing was "settled" that was not right. With them, justice, liberty and humanity were "final;" not slavery and oppression. You may well cherish the memory of such men. They were great in their day and generation. Their solid manhood stands out the more as we contrast it with these degenerate times….
I believe we can all agree with the above but we should never forget that he also said, in the same address:
What, to the American slave, is your 4th of July? I answer: a day that reveals to him, more than all other days in the year, the gross injustice and cruelty to which he is the constant victim. To him, your celebration is a sham; your boasted liberty, an unholy license; your national greatness, swelling vanity; your sounds of rejoicing are empty and heartless; your denunciations of tyrants, brass fronted impudence; your shouts of liberty and equality, hollow mockery; your prayers and hymns, your sermons and thanksgivings, with all your religious parade, and solemnity, are, to him, mere bombast, fraud, deception, impiety, and hypocrisy — a thin veil to cover up crimes which would disgrace a nation of savages. There is not a nation on the earth guilty of practices, more shocking and bloody, than are the people of these United States, at this very hour.
If we are to live up to the standards set by the Founding Fathers, it is no honor to their memory to allow the good to blind us to the bad.Seversky_{July 5, 2020
July
07
Jul
5
05
2020
12:06 PM
12
12
06
PM
PDT}

News @ 6
Without a concept of God, one cannot found a concept of good vs. evil.
If deciding between good and evil is a rational process rather than some arbitrary coin-toss then what is to prevent us doing it for ourselves?
Everything turns out to depend on power vs. powerless instead.
It can certainly turn out that way if we are not vigilant and do what we can to stop the unworthy from seizing power But what are events from the Old Testament, such as the plagues inflicted on Egypt, the destruction of Sodom and Gomorrah, the treatment of the Midianites, Amalekites and Canaanites or the Great Flood other than unwarranted exercises of Divine power?Seversky_{July 5, 2020
July
07
Jul
5
05
2020
11:56 AM
11
11
56
AM
PDT}

Jawa @ 5
1. What do you mean by “good and evil”? What’s that?
In my view, good and evil are, like beauty, in the eye of the beholder. They are judgements we form on the behavior of other towards their fellow creatures. To quote my previous example, consider the case of a person killed by a boulder rolling down a hill, if that boulder was pushed by an enemy who intended to kill the victim we would judge that act to be evil, but if the boulder was dislodged by an earthquake, we would regard the death of the victim as a tragedy but not necessarily evil. Very broadly, acts which deliberately or recklessly cause harm to others are evil. Goodness, conversely, is behavior which promotes or protects the well-being and legitimate interests of others, most directly of fellow human beings but also of fellow sentient beings.
2. You wrote: “if we want to minimize evil and maximize good we should look to ourselves” Can you explain what you mean by that? Can you provide an example for illustration?
Racism is a good example, in my view, as most would regard it as evil. I see it this way, we make sense of the world by categorizing or classifying it. We differentiate cats from dogs, fish from birds, things we can eat which are nutritious from those which are poisonous and so on. We also do that with our fellow human beings. We differentiate members of our own family, clan, tribe or even nation from those of other families, clans, tribes or nations and there is nothing wrong with that on its face. Where we do go wrong is when we judge members of other groups to be inherently worse than - or in some way inferior to - us. As I see it, under the many and varied cultural veneers we are all human beings with the same needs, the same fears and the same hopes and desires. Racism is founded on ignoring or denying that equivalence. Sadly, it seems to be an almost instinctive response, which suggests the seeds of it are in all of us. This means we need to develop the insight to look inside ourselves, understand why we are reacting the way we are and make a conscious effort to moderate it. Unless we do that, racism is going to be endemic in all human societies to varying degrees for the foreseeable future.Seversky_{July 5, 2020
July
07
Jul
5
05
2020
11:43 AM
11
11
43
AM
PDT}

From Little Acorns Mighty Oak Trees Grow America is like this parable. We used to gather in the assembly room of Edgewood Elementary School just around the corner where our three grandchildren grew up. On the walls on both sides of the stage in large size were a couple of songs we often sang, including the one above. “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.” Thomas Jefferson penned these words from the Declaration of Independence in 1776 At the time these words were written and attested to by 56 English colonialists desiring independence, the phrase was far from true and certainly not self evident to many in the colonies, in England and around the world. Men, women and children within those thirteen colonies and elsewhere around the world were human beings, but also property owned by other human beings. Thomas Jefferson and George Washington were slave holders as were others among those 56 men, and they personally and collectively were denying Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness to their human property, and had the “right” to deny life as well. So that’s how this nation, the United States of America began … But a great irony is that those words – that phrase – was the “little acorn” that has grown into a “Mighty Oak Tree.” And like that little acorn, birthed beneath the dirt, alive but not yet an oak tree – liberty and the pursuit of happiness was yet to come. But come it did, but not without struggle – too much struggle and too much time. Consider that the time line for this struggle should not be viewed as the time from 1776 to our present day, but rather be measured back to the time of the Exodus of the Hebrews from an ancient Egyptian Pharaoh some 3200 years prior to the little acorn of Jefferson’s words. But the acorn was yearning for the sun and the air and the chance to grow into a mighty oak. Likewise, there was a yearning for liberty in the colonies, and especially those enslaved. Liberty took root in 1776 with those words of Jefferson. Liberty began to sprout in 1776 with those words of Jefferson. The acorn of American liberty was then watered with the blood of patriots during the 8 years of war against England. At Yorktown, the acorn sprouted as liberty was gained and the yoke of the English throne was cast aside. Branches formed from the trunk of liberty as a new independent government was formed. A Continental Congress grew, but was a frail branch with little strength against the challenges of life amongst the vultures of the world. It was soon discarded as a convention was formed to reform the Articles of Confederation. Instead, a strong branch was formed behind the closed doors in Philadelphia in 1787. But that strong branch of a brand new constitution needed further protection, and a Bill of Rights was added giving protection to individual citizens against a federal government that someday might seek to put a boot to the God given rights of individual citizens. This new and unique constitution was ratified and gave life to the 13 states in 1789. The oak tree of liberty grew, but liberty remained denied to those who were property of others. The tree was diseased and split, perhaps fatally, with this disease of slavery. A new branch grew from the tree of liberty, a new political party – the Republican Party grew with the intent of stopping the spread of slavery into new territories of the Republic. A great storm was brewing, one that would pit ‘free‘ states against ‘slave‘ states. Many in the ‘free‘ states worked tirelessly to abolish this dark sin of slavery – they were called Abolitionists. Ominous clouds formed on the near horizon. The Republicans elected Abraham Lincoln as president, a man of humble beginnings in Illinois. The diseased ‘slave‘ states, threatened with the destruction of their way of life, rebelled and declared once again their independence from a government they deemed oppressive. They took up arms and violently rebelled and fought for their independence. War was at hand, and the survival of the republic of 1789 was threatened. President Lincoln and the Union prevailed and the war was won preserving the 13 states as one nation. But the cost was high – six hundred thousand died in that struggle. But the disease was confronted and defeated. Three new branched then grew from that oak tree of liberty. Three amendments to the Constitution of 1789. The Thirteenth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution reads: Section 1. Neither slavery nor involuntary servitude, except as a punishment for crime whereof the party shall have been duly convicted, shall exist within the United States, or any place subject to their jurisdiction. Section 2. Congress shall have power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation. The Fourteenth Amendment to the U. S. Constitution reads: Section 1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.” Section 2. Representatives shall be apportioned among the several States according to their respective numbers, counting the whole number of persons in each State, excluding Indians not taxed. But when the right to vote at any election for the choice of electors for President and Vice President of the United States, Representatives in Congress, the Executive and Judicial officers of a State, or the members of the Legislature thereof, is denied to any of the male inhabitants of such State, being twenty-one years of age, and citizens of the United States, or in any way abridged, except for participation in rebellion, or other crime, the basis of representation therein shall be reduced in the proportion which the number of such male citizens shall bear to the whole number of male citizens twenty-one years of age in such State.” Section 3. No person shall be a Senator or Representative in Congress, or elector of President and Vice President, or hold any office, civil or military, under the United States, or under any State, who, having previously taken an oath, as a member of Congress, or as an officer of the United States, or as a member of any State legislature, or as an executive or judicial officer of any State, to support he Constitution of the United States, shall have engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the same, or given aid or comfort to the enemies thereof. But Congress may by a vote of two-thirds of each House, remove such disability.” Section 4. The validity of the public debt of the United States, authorized by law, including debts incurred for payment of pensions and bounties for services in suppressing insurrection or rebellion, shall not be questioned. But neither the United States nor any State shall assume or pay any debt or obligation incurred in aid of insurrection or rebellion against the United States, or any claim for the loss or emancipation of any slave; but all such debts, obligations and claims shall be held illegal and void.” Section 5. The Congress shall have power to enforce, by appropriate legislation, the provisions of this article.” The Fifteenth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution reads: Section 1. The right of citizens of the United States to vote shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any State on account of race, color, or previous condition of servitude. Section 2. The Congress shall have power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation. “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 little acorn, the words of Thomas Jefferson written in 1776 finally achieved the intent of 1776, and of 1789 – all men are created equal, and no human could own another human in these United States of America. But the disease lingers on in the heats of individuals to this day and threatens the mighty oak tree of liberty. Moving forward into the twentieth century we see the mighty oak tree of America spawning branches of liberty in other places around the world, the most vivid examples being World Wat II, followed by the collapse of the Soviet Union. Following the World War I defeat of Germany and the humiliating conditions imposed on Germany, Adolf Hitler and his Nazi party came to power and rebuilt a formidable military power with a matching appetite for conquest and revenge. Along with Imperial Japan, the entire world was plunged into war, and countless millions brought into bondage from foreign powers. The United States was brought into World War II on December 7,1941 with the attack on Pearl Harbor. At that time, the Germans had conquered most of Western Europe and was invading the Soviet Union. The Japanese were in the process of conquering much of the western Pacific including China and South East Asia, and had attacked Australia. On June 6, 1944 the Allied forces invaded German occupied France and proceeded to battle German forces through western Europe with the Soviet Red Army pressing Germany from the east. The final defeat of Germany was May 8, 1945. In June 1950, Soviet client state North Korea invaded South Korea and came close to capturing the entire Korean peninsula. The United Nations, led by the United States, pushed back the invasion and pushed the North Koreans back to the border of China. It appeared the war would soon be over and the peninsula united as one nation. But China entered that war and the war dragged on to 1953 as a stalemate. But South Korea survived as a nation, and over the years since has emerged as a strong democratic nation and an economic power house. South Korea – another branch grafted into the tree of liberty. The final defeat of Germany liberated the western European nations, and other branches were grafted into the oak tree of Liberty. The US sponsored Marshall Plan and the formation of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) solidified these branches and representative constitutional governments were established. Later on August 14, 1945 Japan surrendered. American General Douglas MacArthur stayed on in Japan and formed a representative constitutional government which over the years brought liberty to that nation, thus another branch was grafted into the tree of liberty. The end of war in Europe brought liberty to the nations of western Europe, but for the nations of eastern Europe, dominated by the Soviet Union, it was a very different story. Communism was forced onto those nations. The brutality of these Soviet Union communist satellite nations is now somewhat well known, but was for the most part hidden behind what Winston Churchill called the Iron Curtain. That changed with the collapse of the Soviet Union as East Germany, Poland, Czechoslovakia, Hungary, Bulgaria, Romania transitioned to the freedom of representative governments. These new branches were grafted into the tree of liberty. The United States under President Ronald Reagan was largely responsible for the collapse of the Soviet Union and the subsequent liberation of those eastern European nations. My wife and I have traveled to some of those formerly captive nations and have friends in Germany, Croatia, Hungary and the Czech Republic. On this July 4, 2020 American Independence Day we must recognize that we no longer live in 1619 when the first slaves arrived on these shores, we no longer live in the days of slavery, we no longer live in the days when there was structural and systemic racism. The little acorn has grown into a Mighty Oak Tree providing liberty and opportunity for all who seek it. We must be diligent and hold fast to that little acorn – those words of Thomas Jefferson. We must protect that mighty oak tree of liberty. Don Johnson — July 4, 2020 Original at: https://ayearningforpublius.wordpress.com/2020/07/03/from-little-acorns-mighty-oak-trees-grow/ayearningforpublius_{July 5, 2020
July
07
Jul
5
05
2020
06:44 AM
6
06
44
AM
PDT}

At 3 Seversky, in response to,
“Life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness” and “with liberty and justice for all” still seem like pretty good concepts to build a country around. Lets start living it. Happy 4th everyone!
states that,
I think we can all agree wholeheartedly with that sentiment. It’s the living up to that ideal that seems to be the problem.
Really??? ,,, it's "living up to that ideal that seems to be the problem"??? You don't say, Living up to any standard of moral perfection is, in fact, an impossible task for anyone to meet. That 'self evident truth' is the whole point of Christianity! i.e. We are not perfect but God is and sent his perfect Son as a propitiation for our sins!
Romans 3:23 "for all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God," What Is Propitiation? | Christian Students https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MwRUV9T7_KM
Take for instance the perfect moral standard of "with liberty and justice for all". In trying to live up to that perfect moral standard, America fought a Civil War in which over a half a million men died. The Civil War was, by far, America's bloodiest conflict, far surpassing even WWII in terms of lives lost,
The Civil War was America's bloodiest conflict. The unprecedented violence of battles such as Shiloh, Antietam, Stones River, and Gettysburg shocked citizens and international observers alike. Nearly as many men died in captivity during the Civil War as were killed in the whole of the Vietnam War. Hundreds of thousands died of disease. Roughly 2% of the population, an estimated 620,000 men, lost their lives in the line of duty. Taken as a percentage of today's population, the toll would have risen as high as 6 million souls. The Numbers Illustrated The human cost of the Civil War was beyond anybody's expectations. The young nation experienced bloodshed of a magnitude that has not been equaled since by any other American conflict. Military Losses in American Wars - graph https://www.battlefields.org/sites/default/files/styles/scale_width_1120/public/thumbnails/image/casualties-by-war_1.jpg?itok=x7I5By7h https://www.battlefields.org/learn/articles/civil-war-casualties
And still, even then, after all that bloodshed, that perfect moral standard of equality for all was not completely met. Far from it. It took the violence free movement of Reverend Martin Luther King, based in his deep Christian faith, to enjoin Americans to finally live up the Christian standards of equality that we all held in common as a nation. In fact, Dr King, "felt that it was his duty as a faithful man to make every effort to get the Church on the right path."
Dive even briefly into Martin Luther King Jr.'s work as a civil activist, and it's impossible to deny the importance of his faith in both his personal life and his most famous accomplishments. ,,, While MLK clearly held and practiced a strong faith, he wasn't afraid to call out his fellow Christians when necessary. In fact, he was deeply concerned about the Christian community. He felt that it was his duty as a faithful man to make every effort to get the Church on the right path. https://www.geneva.edu/blog/uncategorized/mlk-dream-in-2019
In fact, although the left often claims that racism is still systemic within American culture, the fact of the matters is that racism, (the outrage over George Floyd's death being a prime example). is simply not tolerated within America. Multiple laws now protect Blacks from discrimination on all levels of society. In fact, so rare is racism nowadays, that the left wing media, more often than not, has had to invent incidents of racism whole clothe to promote its false narrative that America is still inherently racist as a nation. Think Jussie Smollett and Bubba Wallace. I've lost count of how many times the left wing media has been caught peddling fake incidents of racism.
Systemic racism is so rare in America, the media just can't stop lying about it https://thehill.com/opinion/civil-rights/360083-systemic-racism-is-so-rare-in-america-the-media-just-cant-stop-lying
Claims from fake news not withstanding, racism is simply no longer tolerated within American culture. To claim that racism is systemic, i.e. part and parcel, within American culture is to ignore our long history in dealing with racism, and is also to ignore the current state of American jurisprudence in which racism is 'systemically' rooted out and punished on all levels of society. Seversky goes on,
Not surprisingly, I agree with Dawkins that good and evil are not properties of the universe as a whole but they do describe how humans behave towards one another, so if we want to minimize evil and maximize good we should look to ourselves.
'Looking to ourselves' is the absolute last thing that we should do. It is only by appealing to a perfect moral standard that is outside ourselves, as the Reverend Martin Luther King Jr. did in his appeal to our common Christian heritage as a nation, that we were finally able to root out systemic racism from American culture. ,,,, So that this point is not lost, over a half a million men dying in the Civil war did not cure systemic racism in America. It was only by Dr. King appealing to an objective moral standard that is outside of ourselves that America was finally able to rid itself of systemic racism. i.e. Where untold violence and bloodshed amongst ourselves failed to effectively deal with systemic racism, on the other hand, a non-violent appeal to an objective morality that is outside of ourselves, i.e. an appeal to our common Christian heritage, succeeded to bringing us much closer to meeting that standard or moral perfection.
“The first principle of value that we need to rediscover is this: that all reality hinges on moral foundations. In other words, that this is a moral universe, and that there are moral laws of the universe just as abiding as the physical laws.” - Martin Luther King Jr., A Knock at Midnight: Inspiration from the Great Sermons of Reverend Martin Luther King, Jr.
Seversky goes on.
is our (Severky's and Dawkins') position so far from that of Christianity – at least the Christianity in which I was raised – which also enjoins us to take responsibility for the way we treat others?
Sure the bible says that we should 'take responsibility for the way we treat others',,,
Matt.22: 37-40 Jesus said unto him, Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy mind. This is the first and great commandment. And the second is like unto it, Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself. On these two commandments hang all the law and the prophets.
,, but the Bible is also VERY clear that, in regards to living up to a standard of moral perfection, we certainly can't do it by ourselves. Hitler, Stalin and Mao are all shining examples of how utterly incompetent we are at 'doing it ourselves'. In fact, the bible is abundantly clear that we all desperately need God's help if we are to live up to any standard of moral perfection, both in our own personal lives as well as in society as a whole.
Roman 7:24-25 What a wretched man I am! Who will rescue me from this body that is subject to death? Thanks be to God, who delivers me through Jesus Christ our Lord! So then, I myself in my mind am a slave to God’s law, but in my sinful nature a slave to the law of sin. John 15:5-8 “I am the vine; you are the branches. If you remain in me and I in you, you will bear much fruit; apart from me you can do nothing. If you do not remain in me, you are like a branch that is thrown away and withers; such branches are picked up, thrown into the fire and burned. If you remain in me and my words remain in you, ask whatever you wish, and it will be done for you. This is to my Father’s glory, that you bear much fruit, showing yourselves to be my disciples. Psalm 33:12 Blessed is the nation whose God is the Lord, the people whom he has chosen as his heritage!
bornagain77_{July 5, 2020
July
07
Jul
5
05
2020
03:59 AM
3
03
59
AM
PDT}

According to the likes of Dawkins, humans have no free will and incapable of choosing good or evil. You can no more condemn Stalin than Hitler, since they did not act out of moral choice and simply acted as was predetermined for them to act. Only if free will exists, can anyone be held accountable for their actions.BobRyan_{July 4, 2020
July
07
Jul
4
04
2020
11:24 PM
11
11
24
PM
PDT}

News @6: Yes, but the comment @3 seems to assume that the concepts of "good and evil" don't require any concept of God. That's why I asked those questions @5.jawa_{July 4, 2020
July
07
Jul
4
04
2020
05:59 PM
5
05
59
PM
PDT}

Let's remind this again: https://uncommondescent.com/intelligent-design/if-id-is-dead-why-are-some-obsessed-with-shutting-it-down/#comment-702709PaoloV_{July 4, 2020
July
07
Jul
4
04
2020
05:50 PM
5
05
50
PM
PDT}

Without a concept of God, one cannot found a concept of good vs. evil. Everything turns out to depend on power vs. powerless instead.News_{July 4, 2020
July
07
Jul
4
04
2020
05:37 PM
5
05
37
PM
PDT}

Prev 1 2 3 4 Next

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Leave a Reply