A warning for America.
The other day the Supreme Court's currently longest serving Justice gave a memorable speech at the University of Texas. On the nation's 250th anniversary, he gave America a warning. It was a warning about the evil that touched him personally. You see, the left got into the business of smearing Supreme Court nominees based on ideology, beginning with the undoing of the nomination of Robert Bork. In the case of our subject, they went out and made contact with a woman who seemed willing to testify about sexual harassment with no evidence, long after the events supposedly took place. She avoided FBI interviews and would later be a defender of Bill Clinton when he faced many claims of sexual harassment. For a while it looked like his nomination wouldn't survive, but he was able to confront Senate democrats and saved himself.
A day ago, he told those in attendance at Texas University:
“The second paragraph of the Declaration proclaims, ‘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.’ Throughout my youth, these truths were articles of faith that were impervious to bigotry and discrimination. Despite the multiplicity of laws and customs that reeked of bigotry, it was universally believed among those blacks with whom I lived and who had very little or no formal education, that in God’s eyes and under our Constitution, we were equal. At home, at school, and at church, we were taught that we are inherently equal; that equality came from God, and that it could not be diminished by man."
“What changed the world was not the words” of the Declaration, but “the commitment and spirit of the people who were willing to labor, sacrifice, and even give their lives — what Lincoln in Gettysburg called ‘the last full measure of devotion’ for the Declaration’s principles. It is that devotion to which we owe our rich inheritance. It was that devotion that sustained the Founding Fathers and the Continental Army as they fought and won the Revolutionary War, braved the winter at Valley Forge, crossed the Delaware and defeated an army many times their number and firepower to win their freedom.”
“Progressivism seeks to replace the basic premises of the Declaration of Independence, and hence our form of government. It holds that our rights and our dignities come not from God, but from government. It requires of the people a subservience and weakness incompatible with a constitution premised on the transcendent origin of our rights.”
Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas blasts progressivism as threat to America - ABC News
In other news:
Israel and Hezbollah have entered into a ceasefire as of last night. Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu said Israeli troops would remain in southern Lebanon, where they have seized territory.
The US Navy has not only successfully blockaded the Strait of Hormuz but is going to begin interdicting Iranian tankers wherever they are found.
The House voted early this morning to extend a law that allows surveillance without a warrant.
The Senate voted to allow mining in Minnesota's boundary waters.
Justin Fairfax, Virginia’s lieutenant governor from 2018 to 2022, fatally shot his wife and then shot himself.
The President picked Dr. Erica Schwartz, a Navy officer and former deputy surgeon general who supports vaccines, to be the next director of the CDC.
Newly declassified documents indicate that the first impeachment of President Trump was based on a conspiracy to remove the President from office. Director of National Intelligence, Tulsi Gabbard sent criminal referrals to the Department of Justice aimed at two of the central figures who propelled the impeachment proceedings, accusing them of manufacturing a conspiracy.
The suspicious exit of Congressman Eric Swalwell has elevated far left activist Tom Steyer to a tie for second place in the polling. The top spot had been shared by two Republicans up until sexual harassment allegations were suddenly launched against Swalwell.
The House Administration Oversight Subcommittee and its chairman Barry Loudermilk on Tuesday released an interim report on the Jan. 6 Capitol riot, concluding the attack was preventable and also asking for an investigation into former Rep. Liz Cheney for criminally tampering with a witness during the Democrat-led congressional inquiry of the incident.
A federal judge set new limits on President Donald Trump’s planned White House ballroom, saying construction could proceed only on an underground portion of the project deemed necessary by the military, and not on the 90,000-square-foot aboveground addition that Trump has eyed to entertain VIP guests.
Tags
Who is online
118 visitors
Good morning and welcome to the Vic Eldred cast.
If you are a homeless illegal alien in California, you should know that the state is providing transgender services to you free of charge. The best bet may be the St Vincent De Paul MSC South facility. Otherwise try the Embarcadero SAFE Navigation Center.
And a special Good Morning to those enjoying breakfast in the wardroom.
Thank you for your service.
Semper Paratus to all.
Thomas understands the fundamental principles of our republic as well anyone.
Meanwhile the Court's most junior member is launching attacks on fellow justices.
she's an embarrassment. You'd hope her selection being the result of her biological characteristics instead of her legal resume would have led to assume her job with some humility, but that sure didn't happen. She's acts like an op ed writer for a community college school newspaper.
That is what gets approved to be a Supreme Court justice when democrats hold the gavels.
Thank you Senator Kennedy.
Long Dong Silver understands sexual harassment, tax evasion and selling his robes to far right billionaires. Clarence Thomas is arguably the most corrupt Supreme ever. Don't even get me started about his tea party/Heritage Foundation wife.
Clarence Thomas is the poster boy for corruption and the perfect example of why supreme court members should not serve for life.
There is no harm in describing rights as God-given, but in reality all "rights" come from the state. You do not have the right to drive a car, buy or own property, or seek legal redress for grievances, outside of government sanctioned policies.
The government protects your right to "free speech", not God.
The government says one may not enter the country illegally too, so the question becomes if you believe in the laws of men why subvert them?
Laws are broken and changed all the time. What's your point here besides xenophobia? If you don't like people here illegally try getting the idiots you support in Congress to change the laws so we can stop the broken cycle of catch and release?
Go stand in the middle of a busy street full of traffic and shout "I have the God-given right to be here".
Then don't tell us how good government is.
You just expressed the sentiments of millions.
Someone who obstructs traffic will probably get arrested, but they can always fall back on their "God given" right to do so. .
How about you stop building strawmen with a purposefully obtuse understanding of how government works.
Why probably? Do protestors get arrested for obstructing traffic? Why isn't the law decisive?
I see how government now works and it pretty much doesn't. In the US congress we are seeing outright resistance to everything this administration puts forward. We have courts and jurisdictions that are highly politicized and weaponized.
It wasn't the God-fearing people that got us here. It was the progressives who feel they know best. It is as if they think that the country has already reached the state of utopia for the people and other issues need to be addressed and that law you talk about is getting in their way.
Donald Trump is not mentally, psychologically, morally, or ethically fit to be president of the United States. Of course people are going to oppose him.
[✘]
I was responding to that comment. It is Trumps administration isnt it?
Criticism of Trump should be something that every rational adult does. Given you deem criticism as 'hatred' do you approve of Trump as PotUS ... do you consider him fit for the office ... do you think he is doing net good for the nation and the world?
I predict your questions will go unanswered.
This partisan opposition has been building for decades and even then it wasn't a new idea. This is why I oppose populists and support pragmatic moderate candidates that don't fear to reach across the isle. There aren't many left on either side these days. Your idea that the Trump Admin and the sycophantic MAGA House members is wrong and they should be opposed... in the same breath I'm also going to oppose the idiots rising on the populist left that have no better logic on how to run a country of over 350 million people.
Saying that progressives aren't also god-fearing people is part of your logical failing. While we agree they don't know best, they aren't Unamerican nor do they hate their country. They just have a different opinion of how it should be run - again my logic for moderates holds here.
That post sounds like you've never actually listened to a progressive in your life, but only hear what some have said through some fourth or fifth hand distorted filter.
[✘]
Then don't tell us how good government is.
Oh, I see - you’re waiting for that government that pleases all the people all the time. Lol
I assume that you were a fan of Barney Fife. I always appreciated the wisdom and pragmatic decisions of Andy Taylor.
The government says it's against the law to go over the speed limit. We hire LEO's to enforce the law and they pull over the most egregious of law breakers, fine them or get them off the road completely if they are an extreme danger to society as demonstrated by their willingness to driving recklessly such as DUI or excessive speed going 20 mph or more over the speed limit. Those are the 'worst of the worst' and we ALL want those people off the roads. But just less than half of the country seem to be losing their minds over the people metaphorically going 4 or 5 miles over the speed limit and aren't getting pulled over and having the book thrown at them and being treated as less than human because they are guilty of a misdemeanor. So yeah, I don't give a fuck about those whiny bitch babies complaining about the misdemeanors and are demanding we send gun toting Gestapo into our streets to round up these 'oh so horrible' law breakers. All being a sanctuary city means is the citizens and local government don't want to be responsible for running around handing out speeding tickets or citizens arrests, that's what the highway patrol is paid to do. Is that "subverting the law"? Fuck no, only dumb ass bigots desperate to get the offenders out of their towns more because of the color of their skin and accent than because they overstayed their work visa think that way.
What is a "God-fearing" person anyway? (Since you went there!) Why do you fear what you have not seen?! Frankly, every 'state' you have encountered in your life has been in and of this world. . . including your expressed love for this country. It is state sanctioned!
Somebody who thinks there is something in the universe greater than themselves.
Why do you fear what you have not seen?!
Don't know. I dropped out after the Church promoted men of the left like the current Pope.
[✘]
[✘]
And somebody fears something not seen? How can "something" you have not seen be greater than somebody in reality? Ghosts are imagined and not seen in reality, do you supposed "they" are greater than us and should be. . . ."god-feared"?
The point is that your right to free speech exists independently of the government. If a government doesn't protect it, it's not a legitimate government. Of course a government can suppress it. But when it does, it destroys it's own legitimacy and becomes a tyranny against whom rebellion is justified.
If you don't believe humans have any rights outside of what your leaders deign to give you, you have to basis to ever object when they are taken away from you.
"God" doesnt determine rights, governments do. It is true that if the government given rights do not appeal to the population they can revolt and install a new government that will produce better rights.
Then you agree the government doesn't give you rights. You have them as a human. And the government's role is to protect the rights you have. Otherwise, rebellion would never make logical sense.
God given rights may exist in the abstract, but they dont mean much in the real world. If someone in the Walmart parking lot says that your car is his and he demands you hand him the keys, it is not your god given right to own that car that will resolve the dispute, it is the government affirming your title.
And, you do know that the "Declaration of Independence" that Thomas is touting does not "grant you those rights" - the "U. S. Constitution" does.
The U.S. Constitution, written in 1787, is the supreme law of the United States, establishing the federal government's three branches (legislative, executive, judicial) and outlining the basic rights of citizens. It begins with "We the People," signifying that the government's power comes from the citizens, and includes seven articles and 27 amendments, the first ten of which are the Bill of Rights.
Wonder why he went that route? As a member of SCOTUS, one would think he would know the difference between the two documents.
I do not see where Thomas claims that the DoI granted rights. Seems to me he stated that it declared obvious truths:
And I am no fan of Trump-sycophant Thomas.
{X}
“Progressivism seeks to replace the basic premises of the Declaration of Independence, and hence our form of government. It holds that our rights and our dignities come not from God, but from government. It requires of the people a subservience and weakness incompatible with a constitution premised on the transcendent origin of our rights.”
The DOI is not the basis for our form of government - the U. S. Constitution is. The Constitution is about "PROTECTING" our basic rights - the DOI is about "TAKING BACK CONTROL" of our basic rights.
Again - Thomas knows those boundaries and I'm curious as to why he even attempts to advance that thought process.[✘]
Your snarky quip backfires as you fail to show where Thomas claims the DoI granted rights. Focus on the actual point I made.
Strawman. I never claimed otherwise. And Thomas was saying it was the underlying philosophy. Clearly the CotUS supports that philosophy. As you note, Thomas is not an idiot so why are you trying to portray him as such? Take your own advice about reading what is written ... and not inventing bullshit to argue against.
You have failed to show where Thomas claims the DoI granted rights. And Thomas correctly stated that the basic premises underlie our form of government. So I do not know what you think you are reading.
That thief in the parking lot is why humans banded together and created laws in the first place. (And why I still carry a gun).
Driving a car is not a right; it is a privilege. People can choose to drive a car or not. Is that choice a right or a privilege? Is there a right to choose? How would a right to choose fit into the endowment of liberty?
Except the Constitution does not grant the right of 'free speech'. What the 1st amendment does is prohibit infringing upon 'free speech'.
[✘]
That depends on how one defines "inalienable rights". As our founders defined them, these are fundamental, inherent, or natural rights (some might say "God-given"), that all humans share and that no proper government or authority can take away. Such rights do not originate from the State. Such rights are considered universal, inviolable, and non-transferrable as they embedded in the being of every individual, such as a person's right to exist, one's right to liberty, one's freedom of expression, and the right to pursue that which promotes one's well-being. These rights have been described as "self-evident" because they reside at the core of every human mind or consciousness. Many of these types of rights are spelled out in our Bill of Rights, as those that cannot be infringed by the government and shall indeed be protected by said government under our Constitution. Many of our founders thought they need not be listed in the Constitution as they aren't something that the government can or should dictate.
Those are not "rights", they are "privileges" of living in a given society or as a collective, as is voting in elections in my opinion. Sometimes these are described as "legal rights", but in reality they are simply privileges offered by the government or society in which one agrees to reside, and can be granted or taken away by said government. Such rights are not inalienable.
Yes the government by way of our Constitution is both constrained from violating that right and tasked to protect it, but it does not supply or grant it at a fundamental level. Such rights are inalienable and any government that attempts to infringe upon, or allows those rights to be infringed or trampled upon, must be cast off. At least that was the thinking of our founders, and I think they were absolutely correct.
Natural though they may be, the function of the government is to see that each and every person is able to express those rights as they see fit.
The rights, as such, do not originate from the state, but the free expression of them depends on the state.
Every person, individually, has rights that are guaranteed by the government. These are the "rights" that you speak of. Without the structure of the government to stand behind and enforce these basic rights.
I tend to disagree with the part I emphasized in bold text. Every person is free to express those rights as they see fit, with or without the government. Our Constitution was written primarily to prevent the government itself from infringing on those rights, and via the court system (particularly the Supreme Court) to also protect those rights from infringement by others.
By definition, an "inalienable right" does not "depend" on the state in any way shape or form, it simply is. It is incumbent on the individual to freely express one's rights in such a manner as not to infringe on those same rights of others. Expression of such rights requires personal responsibility and accountability. From the standpoint of accountability, I will agree that the state can step in when one infringes on the rights of others, inalienable as well as legal rights.
Again, when it comes to "inalienable rights", the state can guarantee nothing as those rights exist with or without the state. A proper and free state can and should help protect those rights if they are violated by the state itself or by others. But in a tyrannical state for example where such rights are routinely infringed or stifled, those rights still exist, they just need to be reclaimed by the individuals, via revolution for example. History certainly provides examples of this.
With all due respect, the ability to express rights is only as good as the government behind the enforcement of those rights.
Tell that to someone in Myanmar.
The only reason that we think that we have rights here in America is because the government enforces those rights by the interpretation of the Constitution. Most of the rest of the world depends on the governmental structures around them to hold what we consider truisms to enforce these so called "inalienable rights". (Sorry about the sloppy syntax.)
The state has to guarantee these rights, or else there is no reason for the state to exist. Everything that comes from the freedoms that we enjoy as citizens of America stems from these rights.
If they are not guaranteed by the state, then the whole basis and underlying theme of government and rights goes away. To posit that rights exist without a governmental role to preserve them is fantastical in scope. Rights cannot exist without a method of enforcement.
Once again, I do not disagree with your contention that rights are inherent, but something or somebody has to uphold them. Without the ability to uphold, rights are as esoteric as wishes.
Except that they only felt that way about themselves and other white male landowners.
Hence, Amendments slowly spread out over 250 years to give the same rights to most of the current population, but still not all.
it has always been a flawed, work in progress.
I don't disagree with this per se, but I might replace the words "express" with "enjoy" and "enforcement" with "support". The individual always has such inalienable rights and the ability to express them. Clearly some forms of government or types of states will react differently to the exercise of such rights and either support or infringe on those rights or expressions thereof. There is a difference between having such innate rights and being able to enjoy them at any given time due to a variety of reasons.
Do you not think that folks in Myanmar feel that they have inalienable rights that are worth fighting for? What do you think they have been resisting for many years? Especially in the last 5 years, the people of Myanmar have resisted the military junta primarily to freely express their inalienable rights and establish a true democratic government that would support them. It is the individual and cooperative desire to enjoy those rights that drives out oppressive regimes and installs governments that help support such rights. The "enforcement" of these rights comes from the people, not from the government.
Clearly the state does not have to guarantee these rights, as evidenced by your example of Myanmar above. Yet the military coup and the junta there, and many of the more authoritarian foreign governments that support them, clearly have other reasons for those types of states to exist. Only the people can guarantee their rights by seeing to it that they create a government that supports those rights and overthrowing those that do not. That was the very reason for the language used in our Constitution and Declaration of Independence.
If there was no government, would these inherent rights still exist? Yes they would. Preserving them means using them responsibly and with personal accountability. If a government or state is required for other reasons (and there are many), then part of preserving those inalienable rights becomes seeing to it that such a government or state does not infringe on those rights and neither do the less responsible or accountable among us. The rights themselves are the basis for justice and the building blocks of a just government. That is the method of enforcement, and it comes from the people, not the state.
Excellent. And that something or somebody is the people agreeing as individuals to exercise their inalienable rights together in a responsible and accountable way. While the infringement of an inalienable right represents an impediment to its enjoyment, the conceptual or moral validity of such a right does not depend on its "enforcement". If one agrees that inalienable rights are indeed inherent, then what logical basis is there for legal positivism? If such rights were simply "wishes," what logical basis would we have to demand change or engage in a revolution?
My comment to which you replied with this was talking about the founder’s thoughts on inalienable rights and the right and duty of the people to cast off such governments that infringe upon or fail to support them. Such thought was immortalized in our Declaration of Independence and further clarified in the Constitution including the subsequent amendments.
How exactly are those words evidence that they only meant them for themselves? Indeed they recognized and understood the concept of inalienable rights and structured a form of government to support them, protect them from infringement, and designed that government to be changed or amended by the will of the people when need be to best protect those rights. It is certainly a “work in progress” because it was designed to be. And the government it frames was designed to be cast off or replaced were it to become an impediment to the enjoyment of our inalienable rights.
Have you read the list of Amendments to the Bill of Rights and the Constitution?
SCOTUS decisions like Dred Scott? Plessy? Ferguson? Any treaty or case involving Native Americans?
The DOI was just that, a political statement to Great Britain, it had no legal basis to over ride the BOR or the Constitution.
Now 250ish years later most people have basically the same rights unless you are an Indian, gay, trans or an immigrant with or without a green card.
and yet, they obviously are not, 250 years later.
Who suggested that the DOI had any legal basis to override the BOR or the Constitution? Indeed the underlying thought behind it WAS the basis for the design of the Constitution and later the BOR. I was talking about the mindset of the founders at the time with respect to inalienable rights, not suggesting that the DOI had any legal ramifications beyond what was eventually put in place via the Constitution and subsequent case law. The DOI was most definitely directed at Great Britain at that time and the underlying concepts that were the basis for the revolution were also intended to become the basis for framing a Constitution and building a government that could be modified and/or overthrown in the event that it became like Britain had become.
That may be how some folks see it no doubt, but I think the point lies in the part of your statement I highlighted in bold. We have made progress, especially in the realm of supporting inalienable rights, precisely because of the design of the Constitution and our legal systems and the original concepts around which they were designed. Those mechanisms allow it to be the "work in progress" that we need to best preserve our inalienable rights as well as our legal rights (privileges) as citizens of this country. Until recently perhaps, we had made progress with even those groups whom you feel might still be marginalized when it comes to equal rights, and come next election we will have the opportunity to get back on that positive track precisely because that is how our system is designed. Like you said, it isn't perfect, and it might be taking far longer than it should, but it is much better than other forms of government or societies throughout human history, IMHO.
Agreed
But do you think they knew leaving out ten Million Indians, three million slaves and 1.5 million white women was something deliberate and they were just kicking the
can down the road for 25 decades?
Giving the system time to work things out that were too radical to address in 1775?
The DOI recognized three inalienable rights. Life. Liberty. Pursuit of happiness (prosperity). Which of these has not been taken from citizens of this country through hook or crook? That is, laws and official policies.
(This is not directed at your comment specifically, just my 'entry' into this discussion on this point of inalienable rights.)
Since there are no such beings as god/gods, I prefer to believe in biology. The petri dish of creation. Microbiology was one of my favorite classes in college.
It was one of my favorites as well. I remember doing a project where I had to grow multiple bacteria colonies on a petri dish and based on microscope observations and how the colonies reacted to the others. I got an 'A' in the class. Science is fun! 😁
And then they said that I had to have a minor even though I was in my 30s. Stupid! So I chose anthropology and specialized in knapping. Made arrowheads and stone knives like there was no tomorrow. Made so many that I was giving them away for birthday and Christmas presents. Still perfecting the art.
No, I do not buy that. Seems to me progressives want to use the laws of our land to enable that basic equality of which Thomas speaks. To counter bigotry that contradicts the "all men are created equal" philosophy. Laws are the societal mechanisms to accomplish that.
Attempting to right (or at least mitigate) wrongs (wrongs that Thomas acknowledges) is being spun as elevating government to godlike status ... seems like ridiculous spin.
Conservatives think God is on THEIR side.
I think that is mostly true.
How one can hold that God approves of Trump is enigmatic.
[✘]
They are correct, however, it is a fickle curse.
Well, you can't spell 'conservative' without 'veri cave snot'...
Isn’t it obvious that Jesus is maga? J Dog is the only one who can make that blasphemous ogre laugh.
The whole argument the religious right uses about -
- is alway misused. Jefferson was a Deist rooted in the philosophy of Enlightenment and natural law. A Deist god... or a natural creator does not interfere in the lives of man like the traditional God of the Christians.
Even then the framers of the Constitution found themselves holding the short end when anti-federalists didn't trust the word of this 'creator' to secure the rights they were told were theirs. They came from governments that used gods to oppress these rights. So they had to go back to months of negotiations and come up with the Bill of Rights as a contractual basis of government.
The goal of progressivism is achieving equality of outcome as measured by biological group. It is inherently opposed to a system based on equality of opportunity, which is the "basic equality" the founders were focused on.
Prove this statement.
ChatGPT weighing in on your claim: "The goal of progressivism is achieving equality of outcome as measured by biological group."
Gemini weighing in on your claim:
Read the dissents and everyone who supported them.
Feel free to show which progressives oppose affirmative action.
Why don't you present something as a proof instead of having me read through a bunch of crap?
Present your argument.
Delineate what you think proves your stance.
Don't give me a bunch of shit to read through and say, "It's in there somewheres."
Your comments imply an extremely simplistic view of political reality.
Why don't you point out the particulars?
[deleted][✘]
His argument seems to boil down to "nuh uh".
Or really "nuhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh"
I did and provided an example of it. [deleted]
[deleted] [✘] just show me progressives who opposes race based discrimination in the name of equity. [deleted][✘]
What is Affirmative Action and the 'spirit' within it?
Does freedom of religion come from God? Is the First Amendment compatible with the Ten Commandments?
Clarence apparently does not understand the contradiction.
"Thou shalt have no other gods before me" expressly forbids freedom of religion, and the Bill of Rights.
God's list of "shalt nots" forbids us to do things we are guaranteed the right to do by the Constitution.
Several of the 10 commandments are in conflict with the Constitution
Exactly.
I have the right to take the name of the Lord in vain, if I want to do so.
I have the right to worship any other god I want, or none at all.
Which ones?
It's not that the ten commandments "are" unconstitutional, it's just making most of them the law of the land would be. If you want to practice them in your own life, great. But don't go creating, supporting or voting for laws that would force others to obey any one religions doctrine or laws. How Christians feel about Sharia law being forced on them I and millions of other Americans feel about Christians pushing for their own theocracy.
First, and in order to keep us on the same page, this is what I responded to:
In responding to my question "Which ones?'', you responded with:
I agree with this. The reason they are not actually in conflict is that each governs separate realms. The Constitution essentially establishes the branches of government, sets limits upon its power and recognizes (not grants) rights of the people. The Ten Commandments governs the individual who seeks God, not government. There is no conflict.
I believe we can see this in Jesus himself and what he did while he was here. He did not seek to change governments, he sought to change individual lives. He said his kingdom was not of this world. He also said, "Give to Cesar what is Cesar's and to God what is God's. Again, no conflict.
The point of this seed was claiming that 'progressives' are the crazy ones and think their freedoms are derived from our constitution and government while conservatives 'know' these rights come from God. That's where the fucking conflict comes in, fucking conservatives trying to claim their bible and ten commandments supersede the constitution which put it in direct conflict with the constitution. As long as Clarance Thomas and every other God Damned religious zealot keeps their fucking religion to themselves and out of our government, then we have no conflict! Hurray! It would indeed be as you say if that was the fucking case. Sadly, it is not. Weaselly slimy conservatives try to stick their religion in our schools, in our court houses, in our laws and in our government so there IS a conflict. Maybe not for rightwing conservative Christians, they want to live under Christo-fascist rules, it's their jam baby. The rest of us would rather have lemon juice squeezed into paper cuts on our eyeballs, though perhaps I shouldn't be giving any Nazi loving Christo-fascists any ideas.
Um, yeah... I think I'll wait until you're a bit less... whatever this is.
If our rights came from god and the bible, slavery would still be legal.
Um, what does this have to do with the Ten Commandments and whether or not it conflicts with the Constitution?
Yes, do try to answer. Take into account this "happening" that is in anticipated in the seat of U.S. power:
Trump and "company" are expressing a group set of freedom to read "The Bible" verse, would he and his 'group' be willing to read from the Koran, and the Bhagavad Gita as well? I will answer that, most certainly no .
I sometimes wonder why I bother quoting what I am responding to since some never bother reading it for reference. You want an answer to your question, read what I quoted.
Me, too.
Me, too. Still don't see what this has to do with whether or not the Ten Commandments conflict with the Constitution. It appears you are trying to change the subject. Unless, of course, you can show me a version of the Commandments where God decrees slavery?
And???
And? And he showed you what you asked. So, what about it?
No, he didn't. He showed that God intervened in a human made system and set limits. Not that God decreed or commanded slavery. On top of that, he didn't show where the concept of slavery appears in the Ten Commandments.
Ahhh, I understand when you said,
You didn't mean any of the commandments , you only meant the commandments that YOU like. I never said that he DECREED slavery, just that if we received our rights and laws based on the bible slavery would still exist.
If your god didn't approve of slavery, why did he allow it??? He doesn't allow you to eat shellfish or pork, trim your beard or wear blended material clothing, but is silent as far as disallowing slavery is concerned.
If we have no rights other than what the government deigns to give us, what possible basis do you have to objecting to slavery?
What rights do slaves have? A slave with rights is a contradiction in terms.
Never said slaves had any rights and it's irrelevant to the point.
You oppose slavery. You believe the government is the source of all rights. Since citizens have no rights other than what the government gives them, what basis do you have to object if the government reimposes slavery after amending the Constitution?
I would create a government that gives many rights. Your confusion is that you dont think government has the duty to protect rights that its citizens want. If they dont get them they will revolt. I dont disagree with that, which you have alluded to before, I disagree that rights dont need government (and they are meaningless without government).
Seriously? All one needs to do is observe the cruelty of slavery - it's called empathy (though there was also political and economic arguments given by northern states in the early abolition of slavery). Furthermore it WAS the government that gave 'rights' to slaves.
Our government is made up of citizens. We elect representatives and if enough citizens want to reimpose slavery they will amend the Constitution again. This isn't a difficult concept to understand.
Sorry. I don't have time for games, Ozzwald.
Then why does it not? Who spearheaded the abolishment of slavery?
He didn't specifically say, but if you actually read the Bible with the intent of understanding it, you will find that God uses the actions of humans, both good and bad, to accomplish His purposes.
He is not silent concerning slavery. He just doesn't comment on it in a way you apparently prefer.
It's immoral.
You appear to be missing what the debate is about concerning where rights come from. Your side apparently thinks the government "gave" rights to slaves. Our side believes slaves already had those rights and government eventually caught up to their duty to protect what they already had.
According to what? There are those who think marriage between races is immoral. Simply stating it is immoral is meaningless.
The government. Ever hear of the civil war? The south constantly held up the bible as evidence that they should be allowed to own slaves.
His purposes being slavery, misogyny, murder, rape, pedophilia, torture, etc..........?
No he is not. BUT he IS SILENT about opposing slavery. Otherwise, cite your source...
According to humanity and social norms.
Yes, republicans. But racists are not the majority and even they know it which is why they tend to hide their racism.
Here's your chance then. State that slavery is moral. That owning another human being as property is moral. Go ahead.
I'm not missing anything -
In the US enough people petitioned their government with multiple arguments to abolish slavery and convey rights to freed slaves. We actually fought a war over it where both sides invoked their 'creator'.
Your side will need to explain - if they always had those rights, why did it take over 2000 years for "government to catch up"?
I dont really object to the concept of God given rights, I think it is a defensible argument if you believe in God. But without government God given rights are not enforceable, so what are they really?
No shit. Pay attention.
We elect representatives and if enough citizens want to reimpose slavery they will amend the Constitution again
No kidding. That's my point. And if they do, your only response is "tough shit." Sucks to be a slave, but slaves have no right to anything other than slavery.
Of course it is. And its immorality drove the evangelicals like Wilberforce to lead the movement to get rid of of it.
But if rights are simply whatever the government deigns to give us, what does morality have to do with anything?
Women once had the 'right' to an abortion across the US and now in many places they don't. So thanks, I guess, for agreeing with me?
I think it's flowery language and not to be taken literal. Especially as penned by our founders.
Rights without enforcement are just words with no meaning.
I don't think you understand the discussion. That the Court decided that a "right" it suddenly found hiding in the Constitution after 100 years of not knowing it existed doesn't actually exist has nothing to do with where rights come from. But yes, someone who believes the government creates right has no basis to believe in a right to abortion. That is true.
I understand perfectly.
The Court (part of our Government) did what it does and extended the 'Rights' afforded in the 14th Amendment to women's reproduction choices. Another Court (still part of our Government) took it away because they don't think women should have the right of self autonomy. This is how all societies work. Laws, rights, morals, ideas are always in flux. No creator need apply.
The Bible condones slavery. Not once does it state that 'thou shalt not own another human being as property'. (Yet, interestingly, it is very clear about coveting another's property, male homosexual relations, eating shellfish, etc.) But it does make rules for proper enslavement, inheritance rules for passing one's slave to one's descendants, the degree to which a master may beat his slave, special rules for Jewish slaves, etc.
And this makes perfect sense since the Bible was written by ancient men who grew up with an economic system based on slavery. To them, slavery was perfectly normal and appropriate. So of course the god they invented did not decry slavery.
4th amendment "secure in their persons
And now you have no basis to claim that women have a right to an abortion.
Similarly, you have no right to blow your nose, or have a vasectomy.
The Supreme Court has never said that. Rights don't lie hidden for almost 250 years only to pop up and surprise you.
This is where you lose the narrative. It doesn't matter what basis I have, or I do not have. I also made no claims that women do, or do not have a 'right' to anything.
I'm assuming you are being consistent. If you believe the government creates your rights, you can't possibly believe women have a right to an abortion.
I don't see how you can say anything less.
Your arguments are usually better than this - Women have the 'right' to abortion in states (still government) that provide the 'right' - Women do not have the 'right' to an abortion in other states (still government) that have taken it away.
If you believe that Rights are not granted by government it would be one or the other across all human societies.
It is right there, where everybody can see it
What does morality have to do with rights?
Hmm. I see what you did there. Carry on. . . .
Will you accept that the Old Testament (and implied) New Testament in the Bible was not OPPOSED to slavery. That is, neither for or against it?
(There is a lot of 'speak' on the issue of "Master"/"slave"/"servant") in the testaments, it is addressed in a commonplace manner throughout the books of the Bible. You know this already, of course.)
A distinction without a difference, as I am sure you can observe and respect. Scripturally, God punished what ROSE to the occasion - in 'real-time' accordingly. Yet, there is no single instance of God punishing the holders of slaves, per se. (In and of itself!) Which, by the way, led to the Church sanctioning (based on the Bible) slavery in the Colonies as acceptable (under God's 'authority' as its 'spokesman'.)
That comment is not clear at all. A thing can be right or it can be wrong, it can even be right for its time. . . or not. Care to explain (experience informs me you highly probably will not deign to answer) how a right, wrong, or -inbetween can be "meaningless"?
This is not me belaboring the point or picking at the point. . . I genuinely do not understand why you are approaching this as "meaningless."
Humans are notorious violators of natural law. When we speak on natural law (constitutionally: life, liberty, "pursuits") deriving from (a) God, we encounter a violation of a 'natural' truth when Cain murdered Abel. And though it is stated in statute law ('everywhere') murders still persist. . . including today experience informs us that plenty of somebodies will be murdered today somewhere on the planet.
Morals are rights and wrongs meant to hold communities intact. They are what a community allows or disallows. The 'trick' is to get them right in the 'perfect' measure so as not to injure, disenfranchise, or leave out good conduct that does no harm - while removing destructive conducts 'doomed' to bring about great harm and loss to community life.
I can see what your intent is concerning this conversation. As I said, I don't have the patience for games. Go find someone else to play with.
Take a look at how you 'collected' your quoted material at 5.1.35 from Evilone:
In case you miss it, "men" is not the right word in that sentence you 'shredded' when you pulled it out. . . . take time when your pulled quotes in order that proper context can be made. (Hint: "men" do not have abortions of any kind, and so we do not have to consider it).
Let's be clear, removing a girl's or woman's control over her sexual/birthing circumstances. . .does not lend itself to an application of natural law.
Since you are expanding on a theme: Does a man have a right to life, liberty, and prosperity based on inalienable rights? Not likely if you are being consistent.
I think you have the question backwards. Without God given rights, what is government really? Just a power block that imposes its own self-interest concerning what rights are? Communist governments are probably the best example of that.
You also apparently do not have time for the truth or honest discourse.
A government is an entity that takes away your god given rights to slavery, murder, rape, pedophilia, torture, etc.....
A profound problem is that you, et. al., consider "God given rights" to be those expressed in the Bible.
is right there, where everybody can see it
Except for the Supreme Court for almost 250 years.
You brought it up. Explain your self.
What are you talking about? There's no rational way you can claim that based on what I wrote, unless you are in bizarro world .
This is why I wrote you don't understand what's being said. In no way does anything I wrote imply that. It's literally the point of the the Declaration of Independence should tip you.
First you need to 'square' God as Creator (and not just our mutually shared organized belief system), and then you have to explain how communists governments are of the Devil and not of God. Don't assume we understand anything. . . make it plain.
I see what you did there too. Carry on!
I will leave "bizarro world' alone for you to figure out in your spare time.
As for this discussion, you can not assert inalienable rights granted by God without first taking God out of the abstract and asserting tangibility. You have not done that here that I can comprehend. Complete your argument properly before resulting to condescension - as that is wasted on me and likely every member of this forum.
As for girls and women, an abortion is classified under reproductive rights and that under HUMAN RIGHTS and can be justified (or not) under complex legal reasonings based on Human law.
No. I would not. I think slavery was treated in the same manner as divorce was. God intended that a man and woman be joined until death, but allowed Moses to come up with the certificate of divorce due to the hardness of mankind's heart. I do not believe God was neutral on slavery but tolerated it for the same reason. Hardness of mankind's heart.
Genesis 15:13-14:
"13 Then the LORD said to [Abram], “Know for certain that for four hundred years your descendants will be strangers in a country not their own and that they will be enslaved and mistreated there.
14 But I will punish the nation they serve as slaves, and afterward they will come out with great possessions."
and,
Deuteronomy 20: 2-15:
10 “When you approach a city to fight against it, you shall offer it terms of peace. 11 And if it agrees to make peace with you and opens to you, then all the people who are found in it shall become your forced labor and serve you. 12 However, if it does not make peace with you, but makes war against you, then you shall besiege it. 13 When the Lord your God gives it into your hand, you shall strike all the men in it with the edge of the sword. 14 However, the women, the children, the animals, and everything that is in the city, all of its spoils, you shall take as plunder for yourself; and you shall use the spoils of your enemies which the Lord your God has given you. 15 This is what you shall do to all the cities that are very far from you, which are not of the cities of these nations nearby."
I would like to understand your perspective on God's authority over Abram, and Moses, regarding slavery. Were these direct directives?
Additional: Did God treat or judge slavery as a 'detestable' (abominable) act?
That has to be one of the most ignorant comments I've heard in here. Ignorant as in you obviously know nothing of the Bible or the people in it. If you think you do, show me where any of these things are mentioned as rights, let alone moral.
Then explain it in better detail in your own words.
The most powerful entity who created human beings and their environment, who makes rules for the food they can eat, how they can have sex, the fabrics they can use, etc. did not create a "thou shalt not own human beings as property" commandment (although He did prohibit coveting) and provided all sorts of rules for proper enslavement and even authorized the enslavement as spoils of war.
Not "neutral" or "tolerated", but flat-out condoned it while being picky about trivial matters.
It is one thing to believe in a sentient creator, but it is very different to believe this creator is that described by the Bible ... words penned by ancient men with human motives.
ChatGPT illustrating the OT Bible's support for slavery:
Sadly, we live in an era where millions of poorly educated conservatives want to be slaves as evidenced by their absolute subservience to their new messiah Donald Trump. Weak willed poorly educated masses with no backbone desperate to be told how to live and be led around by the nose so they don't have to think for themselves are obviously attracted to what the bible has to offer.
I would except TᵢG has beaten me to it .... And probably did a more comprehensive job of it than I would have. I would have just added one more:
New Testament
I rise to see you treat my comment 5.1.68 like "chopped liver" - oh well. The thing speaks for itself!
You don't seem to understand what Thomas is saying at all.
Oh?
Why don't you clear up the misunderstanding?
The first amendment prohibits movement action from interfering with religious beliefs.
The ten commandments is a roadmap for believers.
Any contradiction between those two things is thoroughly imaginary..
It's like claiming someone saying "you shouldn't lie" is incompatible with the first amendment
I should back up even farther. You do understand Thomas is not citing the bible for his argument that the founders were correct about the source of our rights, right? The error you make is so fundamental I'm not sure how basic the starting point needs to be.
Well, obviously. He's citing the the Hindu Vedas, of course. Those are about the God to whom he refers, right?
The ten commandments is a roadmap for believers
ROFL. Why are they so lost then? Even the most pious Christians struggle with adultery and coveting. Some of them feign outrage over Trump mimicking Jesus and then turn around and do whatever he says. It’s all bullshit.
Who cares? What does that have to do with anything?
Because anyone can call anything their roadmap, but if they won’t follow it then it’s a meaningless designation. This should put their whole claimed belief system into question, but Christians always get a pass.
[deleted][✘]
I don’t need a roadmap as a crutch. It’s very simple to know how to be a good human. No blind servitude towards jealous sky fairies is required.
Clarence Thomas clearly describes the original intent of the founding documents of the United States. The unalienable rights of life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness is very expansive while avoiding verbosity.
However, Thomas (as do many conservatives) confuse the concept of independence with freedom. They are not the same things. Just as the concise enumeration of unalienable rights is built upon a strong foundation of the 'social contract', so is the idea of independence. Independence requires a civic virtue that freedom, alone, does not require.
It is the Declaration of Independence. Not the Declaration of Freedom.
This is a bunch of bigoted nonsense offered with no support. You might as well just say “libs hate America.” It’s the same.
Right off the bat, the premise is wrong. Our system of government is not based on the DoI, but rather the Constitution. Our rights are also enumerated and based on the Constitution, not the DoI. The DoI is merely our declaration as a soveign nation written in a way that would appeal to the King of England as head of the Church of England. Nothing more! It has no legal application or authority beyond that.
it's the US Constitution that allows religious cults to organize and and it protects them when they profess unconstitutional dogma.
Indeed. although, some seem to think the constitution protects only their religion.
I asked ChatGPT to evaluate your statement.
This is what it had to say about it. Seems correct to me.
The DoI was intended and directed towards the King of England. While poetic, "natural rights" was a way of establishing defiance against the Crown's rule and it's authority over the colonies. While "natural rights" makes for a nice philosophy, it means little without the legal foundation like the Constitution to support it.
Not exactly. When the Declaration of Independence was created, it was not sent only to the King. It was also sent to all the colonies and to European countries as well. It was an announcement to the world that we were now an independent nation. That is, it wasn't merely a notice to a King. As ChatGPT put it, it was an announcement to the world concerning “ the principles on which our government, and our identity as Americans, are based ,"
You can find more information about the DoI here at the
The King of England was the primary target audience. At the time, the Colonies and Europe in general was quite religious. The principles of freedom and liberty for this country was solidly established by the enumeration of rights within the Constitution along with the system of government. Interestingly and not coincidentally, the Constitution makes no reference to religion (except for the freedom of) or god in establishing the foundation of law and government.
That's nice and all, but irrelevant. I'm speaking to your statement that started this thread.
It's actually based on both. The Declaration explains what a good government looks like. It also points out that rights aren't established by government, which the Ninth Amendment also recognizes. For instance, the right to self defense is not specifically enumerated within the constitution, but it goes without saying everyone has such a right. The Constitution is the framework for our government based upon the ideals laid out in the Declaration.
Put another way, the Declaration was a statement that the natural rights of individuals were not being served by the current government, justifying independence. It then went on to describe what good government should do. The Constitution was the legal framework for a government in order to establish a government based on those ideals.
The problem had when the constitution was written, even coupled with the aspirational Declaration of Independence at the time-and even now, is there is no proof of God some 200 plus years later.
The founders' appeal to God (A higher power was) made in the Declaration of Independence was rhetoric meant to inform and put the King of England and the Church of England on notice that the colonies were moving on and away from England's control as intermediary between the colonies and God.
That accomplished. A war was had.
The constitution (legally) could not then as it can not now. . . prove the existence of God. Despite what faith gives to believers (I am one) of God. Fact is fact!
Incidentally, Clarence T., has been on the highest court in this country for 30 or so years, if he was more than just a. . . conservative. . . with conservative values he would clearly recognize that he has no legal right granted him by a God he has never seen on the material plain of existence. For example, were his inalienable rights to life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness denied him (as it was for his historical people). . . whom would he appeal to for relief? The government or the God he certainly can not see.
I am a believer in God and Jesus, yet I am not going to make my worldview a be all that ends all. . . for a country that professes itself FREE for all that dwell here. It is not!
Rhetoric, today, has more a sense of someone saying whatever bullshit that convinces people to do or believe what they want. It doesn't have to be true. Today's rhetoric relies more on catchphrases, emotional appeal and/or soundbites. Pretty much the bread and butter of political pundits on both sides of the isle today, like Tucker Carlson, Rachel Maddow, Jesse Watters, Joy Read, Don Lemon and others.
But rhetoric used to be more than that. Aristotle broke it down into three modes. Ethos- Credibility or trustworthiness of the speaker, Pathos- emotional appeal, and Logos- logical reasoning. Rhetoric was a device used in order to communicate what you were convinced is true. If communication is what you say, rhetoric is how you say it to make it matter.
Concerning rhetoric, the Declaration of Independence was rhetoric in Aristotle's sense. It concerned complaints about a tyrannical government, put forth evidence concerning it and described what a legitimate government should look like. In the course of doing so, they appealed to a Creator who imbued each person with inalienable rights. This was not rhetoric in the modern sense. Whether they were theists, like John Hancock, or deists, like Thomas Jefferson, they actually believed in a Creator/God and that He was the source of those rights. They did not include it simply because of emotional appeal.
Apparently, this is what you have a problem with. The question is, do we have inalienable rights, meaning rights that exist in the same sense that gravity exists or some other phenomenon, or is that simply a delusion? If it is true, then they must come from our Creator, since an accidental, arbitrary universe knows nothing of, or cares about, rights. If it is false, then that means there are no such things such as rights, justice or right or wrong, as there is no power to which one can appeal to in order to justify them. A tyrannical government is not wrong, unjust, evil or anything else, since those concepts are whatever those who hold power say they are and there is nothing to which anyone can appeal to in order to say otherwise.
So, CB. You figure it out. Do rights come from our Creator? Or do they come from a piece of paper written by a species that demonstrates over and over again just how depraved it can be?
Do rights come from our Creator? - Drakkonis, you figure it out: Do we know without a hint of doubt there is a God? Can Spirit give anything to the natural world?
These two questions are OPEN throughout the history of world religion. No one has seen any God at any time and what we, me included, have is our Faith in God/s to sustain us. We are stuck on open questions. . . and plenty of circumstantial evidences, and yet some believers speak as though "we know that we know" - when nothing is settled.
I believe in God, and yet I accept it as belief (for me) and I will not charge others to CONFORM to my judgement. It is wrong for some to violate the rights of others to decide their own course through life! Especially in this country with its aspirations of liberties and freedoms enshrined in its constitution.
The constitutional document we aspire and live 'up' to, is not responsible for human depravity. The rights within it are how we live and are the standard for our courts which administer justice through it accordingly.
Now, you figure it out. (Or, maybe if you accept a challenge, we can figure it out together through positive rhetoric which leads us to stating truth and not simple abstractions by which some choose their whole life to live.
Reading many of these responses can't but help make one feel depressed about many progressive's inability to understand a straight forward argument from Thomas.
I think that, for most of them, the only relevant factor in their thinking is that he is conservative. Therefore, whatever he says is some sort of effort at imposing tyranny, whether they understand it or not. So, they don't actually have to think about what he's saying, since it's already a given that it's wrong on account of him being conservative. This is easy to see, since you seldom see a counterargument. Instead, just a bunch of nothing stating that he's on the far right. For a lot of them, that's all it takes to turn their ears off. Just label everything you oppose as far right.
Well Clarence T is a DEI hire ("Straight out of Yale" affirmative action program) that is liked because though he is 'affirmed' conservative from start to finish. Why do conservatives give Clarence a pass all this time. Partisan bullsh-t. Thomas refused to attend his alma mater until his 'old age' because they ' affirmed ' him into the school.
For 30 plus years this blankety-blank has professionally stood on the shoulders of Thurgood Marshall (Thomas has that seat occupied by Marshall) and figuratively is pissing down his leg into the face of Thurgood Marshall.
Begs the question that an appointment by a White (man) president to a life-time professional career where what a judge's opinion (ruling) can affect millions should bear 'witness' to a man's personal individual streak.
If Thomas felt so strongly about his individual decisions regarding blacks and their supposed inferiority I would think he would have stayed on at the appeals court (19 months) or Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) (7 years) where his "independence" aspirations could have managed 'solutions' one at a time. The value of the Supreme Court is in its collective decision-making which affect every last one of us.
Well, in Thomas' case the individual approach takes on more of a 'go along to get along' conduct.
Rights: we only have rights because some our ancestors used their guns to defeat the
British and their mercenaries and then came up with a Constitution and Bill of Rights.
We continue to have these rights because Citizens are armed and can protect themselves
and their rights. Rights only last as long as the Citizens have the ability to protect them.
Slaves: We have not had slaves for over 100 years, why do some still worry about it?
Because those choosing to forget the past (and we have plenty doing so right now with their deployment of 'revisionist history' approach to our nation) are doomed to repeat it.
Remember, M-A-G-A (Make America Great Again) implies that this country is not great now. . . meaning it should return to a prior 'state' of national existence. . . . Some of us, many of us, balk at how 'deep' that turn to the past should extend itself! 