THE ROOTS OF OUR CONSTITUTIONAL LIBERTY (Authentic American Political Philosophy)

The Institute for American Liberty ^ | 1997 | J. David Gowdy

[jimt]

It's amazing how many organizations with the words "freedom" and "liberty" in their names are actually very interested in curtailing freedom and liberty in the United States.

The words "God", "Jesus", "Christ" and "deity" appear nowhere in either the Declaration of Independence OR the Constitution. The word "Creator" appears in the Declaration of Independence. During the debate over the wording of the Declaration, a motion was made to add the words "our Lord, Jesus Christ" after the word "Creator".

It was defeated. What was that you were saying about our Constitutional liberty?

Don't I remember something about not bearing false witness?

[unspun]

The words "God", "Jesus", "Christ" and "deity" appear nowhere in either the Declaration of Independence OR the Constitution.

Well, to be precise you are correct. But to be precise, just as they referred to "our Creator" in the Declaration, they referred to "our Lord" in the Constitution.

Just as this infers, their writings indicate that they attempted to establish government that was secular in nature, but which at the same time acknowledged God as did the People (and their God in fact, in the name of Jesus Christ who was "our" i.e., their Lord).

Article VII.

The Ratification of the Conventions of nine States, shall be sufficient for the Establishment of this Constitution between the States so ratifying the Same.

Done in Convention by the Unanimous Consent of the States present the Seventeenth Day of September in the Year of our Lord one thousand seven hundred and Eighty seven and of the Independence of the United States of America the Twelfth. In Witness whereof We have hereunto subscribed our Names.

Go Washington - President and deputy from Virginia
etc...

[unspun]

In response to these rhetorical questions, I propose that liberty is not defined in a sentence, or as a rule -- Liberty is based upon certain principles -- the knowledge and application of which are required to fully comprehend and uphold liberty, respectively.

Isn't it sad that so-called libertarians (at least the FR type of libertarians) completely miss this point?

Yes, it is. I think it tends to stem from an inherent desire not to be accountable. (And so it is less missed, the next time I post a related article, I think I'll flag "News / Activism Free Republic" so it appears on the sidebar!)

[jimt]

...in the Year of our Lord one thousand seven hundred and Eighty seven...

Exactly one citation, in the date of the document, does not a theocracy make, regardless of your wishes.

And Jesus was NOT the "Lord" of some of those folks - like Paine, Franklin and Jefferson, who were Deists.

The Founders were interested in protecting religious freedom, including the freedom of those who had NO religion. Selectively quoting and thumping your Bible harder won't make it any less true.

[unspun]

Exactly one citation, in the date of the document, does not a theocracy make, regardless of your wishes.

Exactly, and in accord with my wishes.

And Jesus was NOT the "Lord" of some of those folks - like Paine, Franklin and Jefferson, who were Deists.

Of those three, at least Franklin and Jefferson had to admit to at least a kind of lordship of Jesus, as they related.

The Founders were interested in protecting religious freedom, including the freedom of those who had NO religion. Selectively quoting and thumping your Bible harder won't make it any less true.

I don't disagree with that at all. If you find anyone who does, please introduce him to this thread.

[jimt]

I don't disagree with that at all.

Then perhaps I misunderstood the thrust of the thread, and the comments about atheists.

[unspun]

It's a matter of not confusing the sundry ideas that Americans might have, with the founding principles that are the bases for the freedom we all have to speak and act by them.

[Anamensis]

And that's precisely why I'm not an atheist, because atheism leads to the gulag.

Most people claim to believe in God cause they really think there is one. It's refreshing to meet someone who admits that's not the real reason to believe.

[Misterioso]

The impetus for my complaint is that unspun puts forward his spin on the rationale for the existence of man's rights. It annoys me that some religionists think it is their duty to teach us pagans about our rights. This evangelism becomes tiring for me after awhile.

Incidentally, what is the source for this article? I was unable to find it.

[Truthsearcher]

I don't *know* if God exists. But I have to have *faith* that he does, because an atheistic universe would mean that ultimately existence, and life, has no meaning.

IF life has no meaning then I see no reason why I should toil in it. It is my faith that ultimately all my struggles serve some meaningful purpose that keeps me at it.

[Anamensis]

Like I said, it's refreshing to hear someone admit that they believe because they dare not do otherwise, not because they really... well... BELIEVE.

[nosofar]

"Indeed---but where did any of the Founders say that government could create virtue in the people, or that government was even fit to decide what "virtue" is? "


That's kind of the point. The government is OF the people not vice versa. Without virtue in the people, you'd have government dictating what virtue is. And if you deny virtue completely (or relativise it), the only thing that would matter is power. (Sounds familiar.)

[MrLeRoy]

"Indeed---but where did any of the Founders say that government could create virtue in the people, or that government was even fit to decide what "virtue" is? "

That's kind of the point. The government is OF the people not vice versa. Without virtue in the people, you'd have government dictating what virtue is. And if you deny virtue completely (or relativise it), the only thing that would matter is power.

That's one point. Another is that it's invalid to go from 'morality is necessary for republican governance' to 'we must impose moral behavior by law', as many supporters of moralistic laws like the War On Some Drugs do.

[Khepera]

You just said (And I say it often) that being a bigot is a good thing. I agree.

[Diamond]

Like I said, it's refreshing to hear someone admit that they believe because they dare not do otherwise, not because they really... well... BELIEVE.

Why is that refreshing to you?

Cordially,

[nosofar]

"That's one point. Another is that it's invalid to go from 'morality is necessary for republican governance' to 'we must impose moral behavior by law', as many supporters of moralistic laws like the War On Some Drugs do. "


Imposing morality is exactly what laws are for. All laws are predicated on some moral system. We impose restrictions on theft, murder, etc., for moral reasons. There are practical arguments for such laws, but ultimately laws like these are created because people think behavior like this is morally wrong. The real question is what morality is (or should be) used.

[MrLeRoy]

"That's one point. Another is that it's invalid to go from 'morality is necessary for republican governance' to 'we must impose moral behavior by law', as many supporters of moralistic laws like the War On Some Drugs do. "

Imposing morality is exactly what laws are for.

Imposing the subset of morality that says "don't violate the rights of others" is exactly what laws are for.

[nosofar]

Imposing morality is exactly what laws are for.

Imposing the subset of morality that says "don't violate the rights of others" is exactly what laws are for.


And who judges what those rights are? It still comes down to the moral values and beliefs of individuals. It can't be helped. It's implicit in the very idea of government.

[MrLeRoy]

Imposing the subset of morality that says "don't violate the rights of others" is exactly what laws are for.

And who judges what those rights are?

Rights are defined by man's nature as a free-willed reasoning being; a person has the right to exercise his free will and reason to formulate and pursue his own ends, and not be used as a means to another's ends. These natural rights exclude the fictitious "right" to live in a drug-free world, just as they exclude, e.g., the "right" to free health care.