'Sir': Trump supporter goes silent when confronted by CNN about 'God' in the Constitution

I wish God would show us some mercy and get these people out of our national political dialogue.

Talk to the media.  They probably interview a couple dozen people to get them to say something that will show controversy or stupidity.  Remember Waters world?  He would interview people and show the ones with really ignorant responses.  There is no way he didn't interview 100 people looking for the responses he wanted to air.

Also interestingly enough I would not have known anything about this person if not for you adding her to political dialogue right here.

In fairness to this lady, and others who think like her, God is referenced in the Declaration of Independence.

the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitle them

…

that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights

The Declaration, of course, is not the Constitution, but it is justifiably revered and looked to as a document that defines what America is supposed to stand for. So, when people envision America as having a connection to God, I get it. That doesn't make this lady right about anything in particular, but I don’t think this concept is a crazy one, and it’s a little pedantic to focus only on whether or not it’s in the Constitution.

"I have a God-given right to speak my own truth," she continued.

"But there are facts, right?" O'Sullivan pressed her.

"The facts have shown that the election was stolen," said Lightfoot. "Whether you're willing to look at that and accept that and really show what's going on, that's your issue, not ours. We want the God-given freedom that our Constitution and our Bill of Rights is based on."

The fact remains that her, "truth," however arrived at, is different than reality. Pedantic? Meh, I feel that it is based on sound reasoning. But then again, I feel no need to put "God" in anything but a box to go on the closet shelf. 

Pedantic? Meh, I feel that it is based on sound reasoning.

It’s really not sound reasoning. If you know you have a certain right, does it matter if the right is spelled out in Article VI, or the 9th Amendment, or simply the US Code? If you’re a lawyer working a case, it matters, but it doesn’t matter in this context.

Set aside what she thinks the documentary source is and get at the main theme of her words. She is talking about God-given rights, that is “Natural” rights or Natural Law. This is a philosophy that was very much in the minds of the Founders, and remains the foundation of how our government, laws, and rights intertwine.

Two points if I may:

1. This woman did not know for what she spoke. Thus she has been misinformed and is likely continuing to spread misinformation. 

2. Some of the same founders who invoked God to part and separate themselves from a king over them. . . using God as a rhetorical flourish. . . but deliberately leaving God out of foundation of their constitution which would replace the role of  King in importance to a new nation.

Can one argue about pedanticness without becoming pedantic?

I don't think that Jefferson held by revealed religions. This lady is arguing from the point of revealed religion. Her "God" is a specific god and therefore all that springs from the founding documents is based on revealed religion, aka., Christianity. I do not think this was Jefferson's intent at all. Indeed, I think that in the draft stages of the document he left the word "God" out of the Declaration. 

In the writing of the Constitution, however, any reference to "God" was purposefully omitted. 

First, she doesn’t once mention Jesus or the Bible. It’s not about a specific religion.

Second, she also doesn’t say God is in the Constitution. She says the Constitution and the Bill of Rights are based on God given freedom.

Finally, Jefferson (who wrote the Declaration, not the Constitution - are you conflating them now?) was a big believer in Natural Rights.

She’s right.

She also doesn’t say God is in the Constitution.

I would have to disagree with that. She opens up her phone to try and find the use of the word "God" she thinks is in there. 

My take on this is basically that people often hold abstract or summary knowledge and forget (and misremember) many of the details that comprised that summary knowledge.   People also often merely accept 'facts' from others without actually verifying these 'facts'.   

I think it is a common view that our founders attempted to form a nation that would protect natural rights (rights from nature ... typically, at that time, this is a reference to deities).   While the CotUS is secular (by intent), it is quite fair to hold that it was influenced by some level of religious thinking (almost inevitable).

So this lady probably uses ideas like the later ("In God We Trust") slogans on money and later facts like we "swear on the Bible" and of course the reference to inalienable rights and God in the DoI to substantiate a belief that God is mentioned in the CotUS.

It is an easy mistake to make.   But it is, point of fact, a mistake.

We don’t see the result of the dispute. She factually says the Constitution and Bill of Rights are based on God-given freedom. It’s the guy interviewing her who warps that into God being mentioned in the Constitution.

It’s the guy interviewing her who warps that into God being mentioned in the Constitution.

As is the norm for these left leaning "journalists" and their "Man on the Street", highly edited, hit pieces.

There is no such thing as "God given freedom" , short of anarchy. Rights are conferred by governments. 

Rights are conferred by governments. 

That is 100% ass backwards, government restricts rights they don't grant them.

Bingo

That is 100% ass backwards, government restricts rights they don't grant them.

The right to own property and not have it stolen from you is a right granted by government (on behalf of the demos).   One of many examples.

Ultimately, without human-imposed order we have anarchy.   With anarchy the only reified 'right' is the right to do what you want until someone else with more power deprives you of that right.   

A lot of people think that , but it is not reality. 

Unless you want to live on a deserted island. 

Are you free to own your own land, outside of government ? 

Not really, unless you want to agree that someone else is free to take it from you. 

exactly.

Bullshit, people have held property for years without government. government doesn't grant you the right to own property, FFS. they have laws preventing it's theft, They don't grant the right to own it.

So until governments were formed nobody owned land? I have the right to carry guns, or take drugs.....until the government restricts that right. PERIOD.

Kind of like abortions? does the government grant you the right to abortion? or are red states restricting that "right"

government doesn't grant you the right to own property,

without government your "right" to own property cannot be enforced.  You are describing a dog eat dog world. 

Not really, unless you want to agree that someone else is free to take it from you.

This same argument can be made about life, Do i only have my life because the government makes a law saying someone can't take it?

The right to have an abortion is secured by the government. Otherwise someone could kidnap you and force you to have the baby. 

Obviously human beings have life when they are born. 

Your right to live your life the way you want or need to is secured by government.  Otherwise you are in a dog eat dog situation. Is that what you want ? 

Yes it can be enforced John, the same way it was enforced for millennia. We have laws which are what you are describing to promote civilization, same as laws against stealing and murder, they aren't rights. 

You’re free to believe that, of course, but it’s not how the Founders felt about it. 

So that we understand the distinction here, the Constitution is the law. It is a legal document that outlines how government will function.

The Declaration of Independence has a kind of legal significance, but it is not law. Rather, it is two things. One, it is a justification argument for breaking with England. But before that, and at least as important, it is a statement of philosophy about the role of rights and government. 

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.--That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, --That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness.

This is a bottom-up approach to government combined with a top-down (God to humans) approach to rights. It could not be more clear. The rights exist and come from God. Government exists to secure rights that already exist.

This is why the Bill of Rights addresses our rights as preexisting and restricts government’s authority to infringe upon those rights.

Otherwise you are in a dog eat dog situation. Is that what you want ? 

Why are you changing the criteria? the point is the government doesn't give you rights. not whether or not the protect them as some sort of compact.

I dont know what countries had no government,  where the people were safe and secure. Even tribes on an island in the middle of nowhere have a form of government. 

In an abstraction I would agree with the concept of "God given rights", but in practice it means very little. 

The right to have an abortion is secured by the government.

Almost there, it's not granted by the government, the right is secured by the government. 

Otherwise someone could kidnap you and force you to have the baby. 

I'm at a loss for words here, who knew abortion was the only thing that prevented this.

Bull. In order to have properly constructed 'God-given' rights . . .everybody would have to be under the authority of God. . . and there is no obvious proof of God (or this on-going discussion about God's existence) would cease.

is the norm for these left leaning "journalists" and their "Man on the Street", highly edited, hit pieces.

I saw an item  couple weeks ago from a journalist who used to work for one of those left wing sites that do that.  His job was to go "teaparty" rallies, interview hundreds of people and then select the most "out there" response and package that as representative of that  tea party protest.  Said he had to quit because it cost him his self respect.

Almost there, it's not granted by the government, the right is secured by the government. 

A "right" that is not secure is nothing but words. 

Bullshit, people have held property for years without government. government doesn't grant you the right to own property, FFS. they have laws preventing it's theft, They don't grant the right to own it.

Just saying 'bullshit' does not make you right.

I thought I was clear but I will be even more specific.   When human beings evolved from strictly hunter/gatherer to agricultural the concept of property (in the abstract) was formed.   Settled tribes (on some plot of land ... property) could be seen as owning that land.   But they actually did not own it.   This is evidenced by the fact that more powerful tribes could conquer them and then they would 'own' the land.    To wit, nobody owns the land ... it just is occupied by the strongest tribe.

The reality is that there was no real ownership.   Anarchy ruled.

With the formation of civil society, we reified rights such as property rights.   These rights (especially in societies based on the rule of law) cannot exist without government agency.   And yes the important portion of these rights is that government will serve as the enforcement agent (where there was none before).   

Without enforcement, there is no right.   So as I noted, government enables the right to own property.   Without government support there is no right to own property ... nobody actually owns the property.

You can say the same for Fox News "man on the street" interview segments. Thus, both sides have their political warfare camps-much to the frustration of the rest of us who want them all to pull down the propaganda platforms they have constructed. 

There is a larger problem here though, that is, the perpetuation of misinformation as a form of resistance is strangling proper discourse throughout the political sphere.

This is well said. 

Bullshit, Plus i didn't say rights came from "god" but your rights aren't granted to you by the government.

So until governments were formed nobody owned land?

Correct.   We had occupiers and settlers.   Without enforcement, a settler can be displaced by a more powerful entity.   

I have the right to carry guns, or take drugs.....until the government restricts that right. PERIOD.

You have the ability to do all sorts of stuff.   You are conflating ability with rights.

Kind of like abortions? does the government grant you the right to abortion? or are red states restricting that "right"

We all have the ability to (attempt to) perform an abortion.   Many women (unfortunately) have used that ability in the past (many lost their lives doing so) with coat hangers, etc.   The right to have an abortion means the ability to legally have a physician perform the procedure.   

Seems to me, you think that if a human being is capable of doing something that this means they have a natural right to do so.   That kind of dilutes the concept of a right into mush.

We have laws which are what you are describing to promote civilization.

We have laws which grants rights, privileges, and freedoms. . . in a community. Otherwise, good luck, existing with people non-communally who do not respect your worldview and the resulting chaos (which should end in injury or death). This sense of community even is practiced here . . . where "mods" guide our freedom of speech in the virtual community by use of terms of service, code of conduct, and last but not least—"skirting the COC." All done to put positive parameters around what is permitted speech on this site and what is not permitted speech in a shared "community."

The rights exist and come from God.

I dont dispute that in the abstract rights may come from "God". 

The temptation then is to say "so what?"

I would bet anything that the woman in the video wants rights that are only realized by government. 

"I have a God given right to xyz" is almost meaningless. 

The rights exist and come from God. Government exists to secure rights that already exist.

The words state that these rights exist and come from God.   This is a belief.   It does not mean it is true.

So yes this is probably a decent approximation of the views of the framers (although the DoI does not necessarily mean the framers were aligned with every sentiment therein).    

Government exists to secure rights that already exist.

That is, again, a belief.   When we speak of basic rights like the right to life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness, our government ostensibly attempts to impose restrictions to enable these rights.   So on one hand I can agree with your point.

On the other hand, there are all sorts of rights that people have in civilized society.   I have used the example of property rights to illustrate something that does not seem like it would be 'God-given' and would not exist without the imposed-order and enforcement from government.

To wit, civil society will create 'rights' that simply do not exist in anarchy.   This is not an all or nothing proposition.

First, there is a presumption that everybody answers to (a) God. Second, "life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness" is negotiable as it is defined by community -local and national- to be acceptable and allowable. For instance, the second amendment grants 'anybody' the use of a gun-but then the nuances (details) kick in to action to determine who PROPERLY should not be granted the 'right.' Another case, being the use of a machine gun or nuclear weapons development in one's 'dwelling' . . . the unabridged right is not absolute (though it is spoken of as such). 

Also, there is a right to be one's self (presuming one does no harm to others), but we have SCOTUS conservative justices who would like to define homosexual marriages out of existence based on their prejudices and the prejudices of the 'majority' or based solely on its not being specifically granted (as a right) in the Constitution. That is, the question becomes: Is human freedom negotiable or not negotiable?

It's a distinction without any significant difference. (And yes, I do understand what is meant by this rhetoric: "God-given rights" as a means to touch the consciences of other (more powerful figures) men, women, and children.)

Let's be clear: it is rhetoric all the same. Every society needs a "Lawgiver." One whose job it is to confirm the positive and negate the negative - by holding people accountable for each. Though, negating the negative is more of what will be noticed through actions taken (enforcement).

And before the establishment of ownership rights, chieftains and kings, arbitrarily determined rights. . . and wrongs (and sat in judgement up to removing the life of any offender of an edict. . . or whim). There was no other authority to make an appeal to that would sustain itself.

2.1.10  George  replied to  JohnRussell @2.1.9    an hour ago Rights are conferred by governments. 
That is 100% ass backwards, government restricts rights they don't grant them.

I replied to the SUBSTANCE of the thread, not to your 'narrow' rhetoric. Besides, parameters are set around 'rights' all the time by laws made by lawmakers. For example:

The 19th Amendment extends voting rights to all women.

Of course, one could ask why women needed specificity in the constitution for a right that men gave themselves in the constitution (and of course, women of the period probably did wonder. . . to no avail for such a long period). The obvious answer being, men did not WANT them to vote for a phletora of private reasons. Thus, this "god-given right" was denied them on its face.

The rights exist and come from God.

And yet, the debate continues as to if there is a God or Gods, and which God or Gods is relevant to U.S. —technically, quite a few "Gods" are relevant to this nation of multiple people from around the world.  God has not or no longer appearing to respond to the 'questioners.'  In lieu of the silence, law steps up to speak to rights.

Also, it is an important aspect to mention that God was invoked in the Declaration of Independence to prick the heart (consciences) of the English king (who served a 'higher power') and English citizens of the period. It was 'higher' rhetoric. And should be understood that way. I, possibly we, can tell this because God or the Church is not the substance of the Declaration of Independence. . . but is mentioned only in closing 'argument' and then only once.

 This is a belief.   It does not mean it is true.

This is a different focus from the seed and what I have been commenting on, which is the statements the woman made in the video. I have not been debating the best approach to - or conceptions of - rights and government. My concern has only been to be fair to this lady, who, frankly appears to have been ambushed by a reporter and then needlessly mocked on TV and the internet.

Her conception of natural, god-given rights as a foundation for law in America is totally valid, historically, in my view. We can talk ourselves blue in the face over whether it's realistic or optimal, but that is beside the point. It's also not her responsibility. Historically, her words express a fair summary of Colonial and early American concepts of government and rights. That's the only point I'm interested in.

Good job as usual, Tacos.

Her conception of natural, god-given rights as a foundation for law in America is totally valid, historically, in my view.

As I noted @2.1.6 I do not have a problem with this lady thinking, in the abstract, that our CotUS was based on God-given rights.   It is an easy thing to get wrong (technically and literally) and, arguably, the framers were mostly religious (at least deists) so their philosophy clearly was imprinted on the CotUS (even though it was intentionally secular).

First off, I gave no claim to authorship of the Constitution. That was an agreed-upon text by the members of the Constitutional Convention, who had met to fix the Articles of Confederation, but scrapped them and gave us the COTUS instead.

Jefferson was a big believer in Natural Rights, but he wasn't a believer in revealed religion. He was fine with "Creator" but felt that the use of "God" instead of "god" in the Declaration was going too far towards revealed religion.

To Wit: Jeffersons Rough Draft

When in the course of human events it becomes necessary for a people to advance from that subordination in which they have hitherto remained, & to assume among the powers of the earth the equal & independant station to which the laws of nature & of nature's god entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the change.

And from the conversation we are having, it looks like he should have just stuck with "Creator". 

He did write “Nature’s God.”

This refers to writings which, in effect, favor understanding the concept of 'god' through science (understanding the natural world) rather than religion.

Actually this is somewhat like my view.  Although I am not convinced there is a sentient creator (Jefferson was somewhat deistic) I think that we can best understand what we call 'god' by understanding that which exists because of 'god' (be it sentient or non-sentient).

To wit, the more we learn through science and logic based on sound evidence, the better we will understand what we mean by 'god'.    IMO

Initially, he wrote "...laws of nature & of nature's god..."

The final draft was "...laws of Nature and of Nature’s God..." 

I am 99.9% certain that the woman in the clip is referring to the Judeo-Christian God and not nature's god and that is what she means when she says "God-given rights". 

Now, she has just as much freedom to be wrong as anyone else in this country. It is no sin, being wrong. It can be unhelpful to hold onto an idea so strongly that one denies the truth when it is evidenced before oneself.

I am 99.9% certain that the woman in the clip is referring to the Judeo-Christian God and not nature's god and that is what she means when she says "God-given rights". 

I concur.   

In fairness to this lady, and others who think like her, God is referenced in the Declaration of Independence.

Many people don't reaize it, but God was actually one of our Founding Fathers! 

Everybody wants something from god, but if god existed it would be like fuck that - I give you this nice planet and you continue to destroy it more and more every day - I’m done giving you idiots anything.  

Everybody wants something from god

I don't, everything 'He' seems to have handed out came drenched in unintended consequences.

Trump Supporter Goes Silent When Confronted By CNN About 'God' In The Constitution

THAT was the topic.   Looking through all 122 comments I counted TWO that were specifically on topic. 

As frequently happens on here, people go off on tangents.

With regard to the Trump supporter in the video,  she is either naive and misguided, or delusional, or possibly, all of them.  We have seen plenty of videos over the months and years where Trumpists say things that are absurd and untrue.  I saw a video recently where a Trump supporter declared the Earth is flat.  This lady's misimpression is not much different than Trump supporter Marjorie Taylor Green blaming Jewish Space Lasers as the cause of wildfires.

The sad reality is that THESE PEOPLE VOTE!

A one hand job.

Thing is, there is not much to discuss about this lady and those like her.   Tens of millions hold fundamental beliefs that are not true.   The most profound untrue belief held by Trump supporters is that Trump is their champion ... that he is out to work for them.    

These beliefs are based on falsehoods, but once falsehoods are accepted to a point where they gain critical mass, there is no changing the minds of those whose beliefs are predicated on those false facts.

Now, outside of poorly informed people like this lady, we have those who believe that Trump was somehow responsible for the rise in the economy during his first three years but of course he was not responsible for the last year.   This is another false notion but it is common and those who just do not comprehend global economics will continue with this simplistic and flawed concept of global economics.

The minds of those who would vote for Trump are set in stone.   The only way to stop Trump is to get people out there voting for Biden.   Good or not, Biden is yet again the only entity that stands in the way of Trump acquiring the powers of the presidency.   Voting for RFK Jr. or anyone else is not going to accomplish anything good.    The Ds better rally their base and win over the reachable independents.   The GOP is a lost cause.

as I said in thenewstalkers way more interesting

I will enter this additional discussion about God, and Gods, (and not about the lady who does the Constitution a disservice by quoting from the Declaration of Independence. . . in her ignorance) to bring up something to consider: There have been and still remain 'G/gods" and "God," and many religions and sanctified (set apart) peoples have fought, injured, and killed fighting against. . .themselves. . .other religious people whom from their respective perspectives were labeled: "heathens"—with deities of their own. And, less we forget the history of the Catholic Church and the Jewish Faith which hunted down, imprisoned, tortured, maimed, and yes, killed those who they considered apostates. 

As to this woman's. . .confidence in what she thinks she knows. . . about her rights. . . I could not help myself (as I gazed on her in the video) where those rights were when girls and women were under the full authority and control of their husbands. . .as far as the early laws of this country determined was 'right' for females.

The argument from fine tuning would be a different matter. While the argument does not prove God, God can be inferred from it. That argument alone would also be insufficient but taken together with all the other arguments where God can be inferred, the case for God becomes pretty strong, in my opinion.  - Generic.

Not true. The "evidences" for God are good enough for a church setting and people who are led to believe. . . I will admit such evidences can not hold up as proofs of God even in a court  where believers are put in-charge. There is an authentic reason why such matters are called "religious faith/s" - because. . . humanity can not point to one actual case of a supernatural miracle occurring one time in their lifetime, in my opinion. And yes, we have grifters in the faith who are 'promising' a great many spiritual things. . . but are they really? Nope. Such matters hinge on the willingness of believers to be 'led' by another.

Almost 500 comments.

Thanks to everyone for participating , but its time to move on.