off course a leftist big govt loving drone like you would miss the point. I would not expect you to understand the importance of Natural Law. nor would I expect you to see the difference between an affirmation that Rights come from a Creator vs. leaving out from where the rights are granted and letting leftists/progressives/commies/socialist/fascists argue, rights come from govt or monarchs or despots. (note there are multiple version of rough drafts and yours does seem a bit thin.) nat·u·ral law noun 1. a body of unchanging moral principles regarded as a basis for all human conduct. here was an instructive comment from someone... http://myesoteric.hubpages.com/hub/...al-that-they-are-endowed-by-their-Creator-120 ADDENDUM THE EXCELLENT COMMENTS MADE BY CMERRIT prompted me to write a little bit more about this subject. John Locke, 1632 - 1704, originating the philosophy of Liberalism, is behind much of the Declaration of Independence; some of the Declaration was lifted verbatim out of Locke's writings. The idea of the "natural right to Life, Liberty, and Happiness" comes directly for John Locke's statement that âThe state of nature has a law of nature to govern it, which obliges everyone: and reason which is that law, teaches all mankind who will but consult it, that being all equal and independent, no one ought to harm another in his life, health, liberty or possessionsâ¦â; Jefferson and others combined "health and possessions" into "Pursuit of Happiness" while keeping, "Life" and "Liberty" as is. (I didn't realize Locke included health in his natural rights, which leads us to a different discussion concerning the role of government in that area.) In developing his ideas on the natural law, there is no doubt where the law came from ... God, not a Creator, but God, the Christian kind. He belonged to the Church of England (if you didn't in those days, you ran the risk of being hung alongside the Catholics) and was a believer. So, and here we get back to CMerritt's and my point, we come to the question of why was the word "Creator" used in the Declaration of Independence and later in the U.S. Constitution? What was the motive of the authors of the Declaration to make this change or, as CMerritt notes, not even include the reference at all in the initial drafts. It is also interesting to know that Locke is also Jefferson's inspiration, and I suspect the U.S. Supreme Court's for the idea of "Separation of Church and State". Locke wrote in his letters, Letters Concerning Toleration (1689â92), produced in the aftermath of the European wars of religion, formulated a classic reasoning for religious tolerance. Three arguments are central: (1) Earthly judges, the state in particular, and human beings generally, cannot dependably evaluate the truth-claims of competing religious standpoints; (2) Even if they could, enforcing a single "true religion" would not have the desired effect, because belief cannot be compelled by violence; (3) Coercing religious uniformity would lead to more social disorder than allowing diversity.[15] Locke also believed that according to his principle of the social contract, he argued that the government lacked authority in the realm of individual conscience, as this was something rational people could not cede to the government for it or others to control and therefore must remain protected from any government authority. In addition, John Locke was a proponent of separation of powers between the branches of government, although it did not originate with him; the Greeks thought of that a couple thousand years before.
With no argument as usual, all you have is moronic insults and a page full of cut&paste that supports more what I've said than your own bullshit position. "In developing his ideas on the natural law, there is no doubt where the law came from" There certainly is no doubt where the law came from. The concept of natural law was part of the philosophy of ancient Greek civilization. In developing his ideas on natural law, John Locke was most influential in articulating the distinction between it and religious beliefs. He expressed how the only way religion can make itself relevant to natural law is to agree with it. That's why people are always interpreting religious text to change its meaning in order to fit with natural law and interpreting standard logic into fundamental nonsense by associating words like bestowed and endowed to the word inalienable. 1. The Law of Nature Perhaps the most central concept in Locke's political philosophy is his theory of natural law and natural rights. The natural law concept existed long before Locke as a way of expressing the idea that there were certain moral truths that applied to all people, regardless of the particular place where they lived or the agreements they had made. The most important early contrast was between laws that were by nature, and thus generally applicable, and those that were conventional and operated only in those places where the particular convention had been established. This distinction is sometimes formulated as the difference between natural law and positive law. Natural law is also distinct from divine law in that the latter, in the Christian tradition, normally referred to those laws that God had directly revealed through prophets and other inspired writers. Natural law can be discovered by reason alone and applies to all people, while divine law can be discovered only through God's special revelation and applies only to those to whom it is revealed and who God specifically indicates are to be bound. Thus some seventeenth-century commentators, Locke included, held that not all of the 10 commandments, much less the rest of the Old Testament law, were binding on all people. Instead of swallowing the first ridiculous religiously biased commentary on everything you come across, you'd do better to get some formal education. http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/locke-political/
rofl, this from people who say "The year of our Lord" does <b>not</b> mean "The year of our Lord". If the left wasn't engaged in deceit and fraud, they wouldn't be doing anything at all.
Just another example of where the original draft was fine without the addition of ritualistic nonsense. But I see you've reached the stage of dumbing down where totally unintelligent remarks appeal to you probably more than anything else.
You people have an imaginary constitution that you wish existed. The plain text means nothing to you people. You only see what you want to see.
Stu.. you are such a troll on this stuff. your argument is like the preamble to a manifesto of stupidy. you are some sort of denier of the the Christian and Judeo Christian foundation of the United States. You sort of act the the reformation did not happen. You seem to deny that the country was founded with people wanting to practice their religion and including that right as part of the founding docs and govt and even schooling. We know what natural law is. So did the founders. They did not find Natural Law and a Creator inconsistent. Look at the paragraph preceding the one in which you raised some silly objection to "endowed"... "When in the Course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another, and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and 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 separation." "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." http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Declaration_of_Independence This has been called "one of the best-known sentences in the English language",[6] containing "the most potent and consequential words in American history".[7] The passage came to represent a moral standard to which the United States should strive. This view was notably promoted by Abraham Lincoln, who considered the Declaration to be the foundation of his political philosophy, and argued that the Declaration is a statement of principles through which the United States Constitution should be interpreted.[8] It provided inspiration to numerous national declarations of independence throughout the world. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Natural_and_legal_rights Natural and legal rights are two types of rights. Legal rights are those bestowed onto a person by a given legal system. Natural rights are those not contingent upon the laws, customs, or beliefs of any particular culture or government, and therefore universal and inalienable (i.e., cannot be sold, transferred, or removed). The theory of natural law is closely related to the theory of natural rights. During the Age of Enlightenment, natural law theory challenged the divine right of kings, and became an alternative justification for the establishment of a social contract, positive law, and government â and thus legal rights â in the form of classical republicanism.[dubious â discuss][original research?][clarification needed] Conversely, the concept of natural rights is used by others to challenge the legitimacy of all such establishments.[1][2] The idea of human rights is also closely related to that of natural rights: some acknowledge no difference between the two, regarding them as synonymous, while others choose to keep the terms separate to eliminate association with some features traditionally associated with natural rights.[3] Natural rights, in particular, are considered beyond the authority of any government or international body to dismiss. The Universal Declaration of Human Rights is an important legal instrument enshrining one conception of natural rights into international soft law. Natural rights were traditionally viewed as exclusively negative rights,[4] whereas human rights also comprise positive rights.[5] Even on a natural rights conception of human rights, the two terms may not be synonymous. The proposition that animals have natural rights is one that has gained the interest of philosophers and legal scholars in the 20th century.[6] The legal philosophy known as Declarationism seeks to incorporate the natural rights philosophy of the United States Declaration of Independence into the body of American case law on a level with the United States Constitution.
"The idea that certain rights are natural or inalienable also has a history dating back at least to the Stoics of late Antiquity and Catholic law of the early Middle Ages, and descending through the Protestant Reformation and the Age of Enlightenment to today. The existence of natural rights has been asserted by different individuals on different premises, such as a priori philosophical reasoning or religious principles. For example, Immanuel Kant claimed to derive natural rights through reason alone. The Declaration of Independence, meanwhile, is based upon the "self-evident" truth that "all men are ... endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights".[7] Likewise, different philosophers and statesmen have designed different lists of what they believe to be natural rights; almost all include the right to life and liberty as the two highest priorities. H. L. A. Hart argued that if there are any rights at all, there must be the right to liberty, for all the others would depend upon this. T. H. Green argued that âif there are such things as rights at all, then, there must be a right to life and liberty, or, to put it more properly to free life.â[8] John Locke emphasized "life, liberty and property" as primary. However, despite Locke's influential defense of the right of revolution, Thomas Jefferson substituted "pursuit of happiness" in place of "property" in the United States Declaration of Independence."
What's so ironic and ridiculous about your nonsense is the stuff you post that directly contradicts the brainless argument you're trying to make. It doesn't matter if the founders did or didn't find natural law inconsistent with a "Creator". It simply is. It's really very straightforward as stated above. Inalienable rights (natural law) cannot be bestowed, endowed, transferred, given, taken away or whatever. Not by a so called Creator, any form of religion or religious "law", nor anything or anyone else. Upon that very unequivocal foundation stands the secular law this country adopted. Not to say it isn't peppered with superstitious superficial religious nonsense here and there; no more than an embarrassment in the 21st century. You can continue with name calling and silly argument all you want, including copying ridiculous amounts of text which contradicts basic logic , but unless you can sensibly address how inalienable rights and natural law incapable of being repudiated or transferred, can be repudiated or transferred, then you're just talking the usual religiously fueled bs.