Remedial constitutional education for Kos

posted at 6:35 pm on March 7, 2012 by Karl

As many of you still shun Twitter, I must share with you the wit and insight of nutroots commissar Markos “Kos” Moultisas on Rick Santorum’s Super Tuesday speech:

Following widespread mockery from the right, Kos did what he always does… dig himself a deeper hole:

Apparently, Kos was never taught that the Founders of our nation believed in natural rights, although this is obvious from the opening of the Declaration of Independence:

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.–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.

(Emphases added for easier nutroots comprehension.) Of course, the Declaration is not the Constitution, even though many of the same people were involved in both projects. However, as Kos cites the Preamble to the Constitution, it is worth noting as the Supreme Court has, that “[a]lthough that preamble indicates the general purposes for which the people ordained and established the Constitution, it has never been regarded as the source of any substantive power conferred on the government of the United States, or on any of its departments.” That “We the People” formed a government simply does not mean the people or the government are necessarily the source of rights mentioned in the Constitution.

Kos obviously is unaware of the debate over whether the Constitution should be amended to include what is now known as the Bill of Rights, let alone the role of natural rights in that debate:

The Federalists contended that a Bill of Rights was unnecessary because in their view the federal government possessed only limited powers that were expressly delegated to it by the Constitution. They believed that all powers not constitutionally delegated to the federal government were inherently reserved to the people and the states. Nowhere in the Constitution, the Federalists pointed out, is the federal government given the power to trample on individual liberties. The Federalists feared that if the Constitution were to include a Bill of Rights that protected certain liberties from government encroachment, an inference would be drawn that the federal government could exercise an implied power to regulate such liberties.

Alexander Hamilton, one of the leading Federalists, articulated this concern in The Federalist No. 84. Why should a Bill of Rights, Hamilton asked, “declare that things shall not be done which there is no power to do?” For instance, Hamilton said it was unnecessary for a Bill of Rights to protect the Freedom of the Press when the federal government is not granted the power to regulate the press. A provision “against restraining the liberty of the press,” Hamilton said, “afford[s] the clear implication that a power to prescribe proper regulations concerning it was intended to be vested in the national government.”

The Federalists were also concerned that any constitutional enumeration of liberties might imply that other rights, not enumerated by the Constitution, would be surrendered to the government. A Bill of Rights, they feared, would quickly become the exclusive means by which the American people could secure their freedom and stave off tyranny. Federalist James Madison argued that any attempt to enumerate fundamental liberties would be incomplete and might imperil other freedoms not listed. A “positive declaration of some essential rights could not be obtained in the requisite latitude,” Madison said. “If an enumeration be made of all our rights,” he queried, “will it not be implied that everything omitted is given to the general government?”

Madison ultimately became an advocate for a Bill of Rights. Kos should read Madison’s arguments, as Madison noted that not all of the rights mentioned in the Constitution are natural rights. For example:

Trial by jury cannot be considered as a natural right, but a right resulting from a social compact which regulates the action of the community, but is as essential to secure the liberty of the people as any one of the pre-existent rights of nature.

Madison won the day in part by proposing what became the Ninth Amendment, which provides: “The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.” This amendment in particular was to remind future generations of statists like Kos that our rights predate government. The Bill of Rights was largely intended to secure pre-existing rights against the new government. For example, this is why the First Amendment does not state that it creates a right to freedom of speech, but declares Congress shall make no law abridging our freedom of speech. That Kos seems so ignorant of these concepts is ironic in light of the role they played in the Supreme Court’s decision of… Griswold v. Connecticut, a case which Kos no doubt supports as much as Rick Santorum does not.

This post was promoted from GreenRoom to HotAir.com.
To see the comments on the original post, look here.


Related Posts:

Breaking on Hot Air

Blowback

Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.

Trackbacks/Pings

Trackback URL

Comments

Comment pages: 1 2 3

nathor, I’m getting ready to enjoy some of my evening with my wife and my Mom. Ponder this and I promise I will check back later to see how you did. Prove to me your existence. Now you ponder that for awhile. When I come back I will tear down what ever answer you give. Hint, there is a correct answer.

Bmore on March 7, 2012 at 8:23 PM

Cogito ergo sum… I am off to the obama video thread, lets see if it is worth the hype.

nathor on March 7, 2012 at 8:44 PM

Cogito ergo sum only proves one’s existence to themself.

Because I am able to sense the physical world and process those sensations, because I am able to apply reason to reach conclusions about those sensations, because I am able to have original ideas, or to consider the implications of the ideas of others, these all provide internal, intrinsic evidence of my own existence. Much harder to “prove” the existence of anyone else, for I might just be fabricating all of you from an insane, irrational mind.

Heck, liberals fabricate ideas continuously, and Markos’ supposition that the Constitution creates rights is a perfect example. The Bill of Rights doesn’t generate any liberties. It promises that government won’t interfere in those liberties. Reading the simple words of the Constitution any other way is an object lesson in mental deficiency, or disingenuous obfuscation by design.

Freelancer on March 7, 2012 at 8:54 PM

“The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.” This amendment in particular was to remind future generations of statists like Kos that our rights predate government. The Bill of Rights was largely intended to secure pre-existing rights against the new government. For example, this is why the First Amendment does not state that it creates a right to freedom of speech, but declares Congress shall make no law abridging our freedom of speech. That Kos seems so ignorant of these concepts is ironic in light of the role they played in the Supreme Court’s decision of… Griswold v. Connecticut, a case which Kos no doubt supports as much as Rick Santorum does not.

Bingo! Well said and documented Karl!!

camaraderie on March 7, 2012 at 8:58 PM

Cogito ergo sum only proves one’s existence to themself.

Because I am able to sense the physical world and process those sensations, because I am able to apply reason to reach conclusions about those sensations, because I am able to have original ideas, or to consider the implications of the ideas of others, these all provide internal, intrinsic evidence of my own existence. Much harder to “prove” the existence of anyone else, for I might just be fabricating all of you from an insane, irrational mind.

solipsism. I confess, as a response to the solipsist proposition , I have a faith, that there is a reality outside my mind and independent from it.

Heck, liberals fabricate ideas continuously, and Markos’ supposition that the Constitution creates rights is a perfect example. The Bill of Rights doesn’t generate any liberties. It promises that government won’t interfere in those liberties. Reading the simple words of the Constitution any other way is an object lesson in mental deficiency, or disingenuous obfuscation by design.

Freelancer on March 7, 2012 at 8:54 PM

I though the gist of this thread was who gave us these rights or liberties. was it god? or we the people?

nathor on March 7, 2012 at 9:06 PM

The Preamble also states that We the People form this union to “secure the Blessings of Liberty

Note that Blessings is capitalized. Where do Blessings come from?

Nemesis of Jihad on March 7, 2012 at 9:32 PM

dont you think god can clarify this stuff better than anybody? right? where is he?!?!

nathor on March 7, 2012 at 7:59 PM

Let me help you out, here.
He (God [properly capitalized - take note]) is in every detail of His creation. In an early morning sunrise. In a newborns’ grasping hand. In/part of/creator of everything.

God can indeed clarify “this stuff;” if He wishes; but he has given us memory, reason, and skill, that we might reason things out on our own.

We should be grateful; some of us are.

massrighty on March 7, 2012 at 9:41 PM

It’s not even that long of a document.

Anyone who doesn’t understand the moral foundation this country was founded upon should have never received a high school diploma.

jhffmn on March 7, 2012 at 10:03 PM

I find it to be the most noble and humble document by any government

Our rights are divined by our creator

No man has higher authority

Really wish we had some of those guys around today
They’d make mincemeat out of the current jokers

Sonosam on March 7, 2012 at 10:04 PM

Moulitsas is an idiot.

darwin on March 7, 2012 at 10:13 PM

Moulitsas is an idiot Liberal.

darwin on March 7, 2012 at 10:13 PM

Easier to teach an idiot…Liberals, not so much.

BlaxPac on March 7, 2012 at 10:23 PM

“write me a story, make it about babe ruth and hitler, but dont mention baseball or germany.” — chief wiggum

Machismo on March 7, 2012 at 10:32 PM

Easier to teach an idiot…Liberals, not so much.

BlaxPac on March 7, 2012 at 10:23 PM

True

darwin on March 7, 2012 at 10:33 PM

They’d make mincemeat out of the current jokers

Sonosam on March 7, 2012 at 10:04 PM

One must be aware of the times in which they lived. If one insulted or questioned the honor of another, a duel was the normal, civilized way to settle the offense.

I think dueling was banned only because liberals aren’t very good shots with pistols. Lets bring it back.

First up: W vs. the entire Democratic Party.

BobMbx on March 7, 2012 at 10:40 PM

Simply, wow, a collossal display of pure idiocy Kos style.

Ellis on March 7, 2012 at 10:51 PM

Dear idiot, The Constitution never gave anything to the people they didn’t already have.

jdkchem on March 7, 2012 at 10:57 PM

BobMbx

Best post I’ve seen all night.

bandutski on March 7, 2012 at 11:09 PM

hank the cat is a constitutional scholar next to most vapid blow holes on the left- and next to a substantial portion of pro-romneycare and pro- pastor-POTUS republicans:

“Madison’s deepest reservations about the wisdom of
adopting any bill of rights reflected his awareness of the difficulty of enumerating all the rights
that deserved protection against the “infinitude of legislative expedients” that could be deployed
to the disadvantage of individuals and minorities...

It is crucial to note that Madison directed his criticism against the character of lawmaking within
the individual states; and the logic of his analysis further led him to conclude that the greatest
dangers to liberty would continue to arise within the states, rather than from a reconstituted
national government. The ill effects of majority rule far more likely would emerge within the
small compass of local communities or states, where “factious majorities” could easily form, than
in the extended sphere of a national republic that would “be broken into a greater variety of
interests, of pursuits, of passions,” whose very diversity and fluidity would check each other. ”

http://www.apsanet.org/imgtest/jamesmadison.pdf

vote hank- he can’t even read but even he knows the meaning of the word ‘inalienable’ and understands where the founder’s believed certain rights came from.

mittens on March 7, 2012 at 11:45 PM

Prove to me your existence.

The IRS gets upset when I don’t pay my taxes?

BobMbx on March 7, 2012 at 11:56 PM

For instance, Hamilton said it was unnecessary for a Bill of Rights to protect the Freedom of the Press when the federal government is not granted the power to regulate the press.

Wrong! The power to regulate the press, religion, association etc was clearly and unambiguously granted in Article 1, Section 8, Clause 3.

deadman on March 8, 2012 at 3:37 AM

Tutto nello Stato, niente al di fuori dello Stato, nulla contro lo Stato
.

(“Everything in the State, nothing outside the State, nothing against the State”)
.

Benito Mussolini

Perhaps this should be unsurprising as America’s Progressive Left is thoroughly Post-Modernist and behind the Post-Modernist curtain stands Martin Heidegger .

Mike OMalley on March 8, 2012 at 6:08 AM

Wrong! The power to regulate the press, religion, association etc was clearly and unambiguously granted in Article 1, Section 8, Clause 3.

deadman on March 8, 2012 at 3:37 AM

No Deadman you are wrong…Article 1, Section 8, Clause (or paragraph) 3 states:

“To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several states, and with the Indian Tribes.”

The rest of Section 8 deals with taxing, money, the post office, copy rights, etc, etc, etc. Nothing in Article 1, Section 8 states ANYTHING about regulating the press!

Confederate on March 8, 2012 at 7:18 AM

Hardcore lefty dopes don’t understand The Constitution? UN-possible.

The smarter ones KNOW what The Constitution says or means. Whatever they say it does.

FineasFinn on March 8, 2012 at 7:39 AM

OMG.
You know, I work with people this stupid, in Public Screwl.
So I guess I’m not surprised.

Badger40 on March 8, 2012 at 7:42 AM

Let me help you out, here.
He (God [properly capitalized - take note]) is in every detail of His creation. In an early morning sunrise. In a newborns’ grasping hand. In/part of/creator of everything.

God is some magical spirit that fulfills everything, even the vacuum between subatomic particles! right? maybe he is the vacuum itself or something…

God can indeed clarify “this stuff;” if He wishes; but he has given us memory, reason, and skill, that we might reason things out on our own.

We should be grateful; some of us are.

massrighty on March 7, 2012 at 9:41 PM

:) so he will not show up after all and we have to guess what he want from us and what rights he gave us! oh well, lets start guessing, I am sure everybody will arrive to the same conclusion!

nathor on March 8, 2012 at 7:43 AM

Kos has a thick accent. That makes it OK.

TimBuk3 on March 8, 2012 at 8:14 AM

I’d bet my house that he still thinks he’s right about this. Idiot.

Fish on March 8, 2012 at 8:18 AM

If we’re paying for public schools, why isn’t the Constitution being taught properly? There are too many like Moultisas, who obviously just don’t know. I mean, statists would, of course, want to avoid an educated populace in this regard, but I can’t believe that guy would embarrass himself so awkwardly if he actually knew better.

Our form of government DEPENDS upon citizens understanding not only the document itself, but the concepts surrounding it. We’re talking about the ‘referee on the field’ that prevents the kind of tumult and division which can tear the country apart. It’s important.

Murf76 on March 8, 2012 at 8:19 AM

Moulitsas is an idiot.

darwin on March 7, 2012 at 10:13 PM

That is an insult to idiots.

MidniteRambler on March 8, 2012 at 8:22 AM

It has been my experience that most legally naturalized immigrants know The Constitution better than naturally born citizens. Kos and is an exception to this experience. Of course, Obama is “naturally born” and he doesn’t know or understand The Constitution either – as doesn’t pelosi, reed, all liberals and many conservatives.

Old Country Boy on March 8, 2012 at 8:30 AM

Moulitsas is an idiot.

darwin on March 7, 2012 at 10:13 PM

Let’s be fair. the guy knows what his audience wants, and he gives it to them – and that makes him a lot of money. I don’t know if he truly believes most of what he writes/says. At this point I think he is just in it for the cash.

Monkeytoe on March 8, 2012 at 8:31 AM

Let’s be fair. the guy knows what his audience wants, and he gives it to them – and that makes him a lot of money. I don’t know if he truly believes most of what he writes/says. At this point I think he is just in it for the cash.

Monkeytoe on March 8, 2012 at 8:31 AM

I get your point but his audience wants him to look like a fool? His tweets suggest the guy has never even glanced at the Declaration or Constitution.

darwin on March 8, 2012 at 8:34 AM

I guess that is why an absolute monarch from France decided to intervene decisively in the American Revolution.
lexhamfox on March 7, 2012 at 7:02 PM

Reading history, you will note that the French hated the English.
What a good way to get back at them.

Did you look at yourself?

*declaring loud* god can you please help us in this constitution kerfuffle, did you granted us our rights or not? *crickets*
nathor on March 7, 2012 at 7:07 PM
do any of you guys that have a personal relationship with god, ask god this question? The the little weasel is avoiding me!
nathor on March 7, 2012 at 7:34 PM
I just want to clear this argument! did god gave us our right or not? lets hear it from the creator itself!
nathor on March 7, 2012 at 7:42 PM

that is a hard question, since god does not show up to give me moral guidance, maybe he left some notes? of course, the koran! or should I choose the torah? or the bible? or the rig veda? can you help me out? god left so many notes, I dont know which one to take serious!
nathor on March 7, 2012 at 7:55 PM
dont you think god can clarify this stuff better than anybody? right? where is he?!?!
nathor on March 7, 2012 at 7:59 PM
it is a important question, “What is the moral difference between killing a chicken and a man?”. I’m sure the founders lost sleepless night on this one.
nathor on March 7, 2012 at 8:08 PM
I am trying to help. did god gave us our rights or not? can we just ask him?
nathor on March 7, 2012 at 8:15 PM
ah, so you know where he is dont you!? I bet you have a personal relationship with him! can you ask him this for me?
nathor on March 7, 2012 at 8:17 PM
what? my satire revealed the sillyness of this whole “who gave us our rights?” dilema and now you label me as a troll? bah!
nathor on March 7, 2012 at 8:21 PM
got it! godless people murderors! faithfull people also murderers, but not so easily!
but wait, what this have to do with our rights?
nathor on March 7, 2012 at 8:28 PM
ok, and since god is not here to clarify exactly what those rights supposed to be, why does this matter?
nathor on March 7, 2012 at 8:41 PM

blink described the idea well enough:

It doesn’t matter who actually gave us our rights. What matter is that the Constitution is framed in such a way that government is not the source of our rights. This is proven by the fact that the drafters believed that the rights were given by god. It doesn’t matter if they were right or not.
blink on March 7, 2012 at 8:25 PM

We do not want our rights to be at the whim of the GOVERNMENT.
That is the whole point nathor.
I guess I’m still not sure if you are:
A. Really that stupid
B. Just being obtuse bcs it gets you off
OR
C. A paid Troll

PErhaps I’ll go with Choice D: ALL of the the above

I will say, you are certainly starving for attention.
Poor thing.

When you don’t know your rights, or even understand it doesn’t matter if you do or don’t, you don’t ask question or protest and make trouble for yourself and your family. That is Van Jones and Obama’s America in a nut shell.
Franklyn on March 7, 2012 at 7:45 PM

I had a day in my Ecology class yesterday where I had an absent student & I was ahead anyway. So we took the whole period to discuss the Constitution etc.
They loved it.
And one of the girl’s mother is our History teacher.
And she didn’t know SQUAT.

Badger40 on March 8, 2012 at 8:39 AM

the Laws of Nature and of Nature’s God

THE LAW OF NATIONS
OR
PRINCIPLES OF THE LAW OF NATURE APPLIED TO THE CONDUCT AND AFFAIRS OF NATIONS AND SOVEREIGNS

This 1758 work by Swiss legal philosopher Emmerich de Vattel is of special importance to scholars of constitutional history and law, for it was read by many of the Founders of the United States of America, and informed their understanding of the principles of law which became established in the Constitution of 1787.

§ 212. Citizens and natives.

The citizens are the members of the civil society; bound to this society by certain duties, and subject to its authority, they equally participate in its advantages. The natives, or natural-born citizens, are those born in the country, of parents who are citizens. As the society cannot exist and perpetuate itself otherwise than by the children of the citizens, those children naturally follow the condition of their fathers, and succeed to all their rights. The society is supposed to desire this, in consequence of what it owes to its own preservation; and it is presumed, as matter of course, that each citizen, on entering into society, reserves to his children the right of becoming members of it. The country of the fathers is therefore that of the children; and these become true citizens merely by their tacit consent. We shall soon see whether, on their coming to the years of discretion, they may renounce their right, and what they owe to the society in which they were born. I say, that, in order to be of the country, it is necessary that a person be born of a father who is a citizen; for, if he is born there of a foreigner, it will be only the place of his birth, and not his country.

(emphasis mine)

Section 215 elaborates on section 212:

§ 215. Children of citizens born in a foreign country.

It is asked whether the children born of citizens in a foreign country are citizens? The laws have decided this question in several countries, and their regulations must be followed.(59) By the law of nature alone, children follow the condition of their fathers, and enter into all their rights (§ 212); the place of birth produces no change in this particular, and cannot, of itself, furnish any reason for taking from a child what nature has given him; I say “of itself,” for, civil or political laws may, for particular reasons, ordain otherwise. But I suppose that the father has not entirely quitted his country in order to settle elsewhere. If he has fixed his abode in a foreign country, he is become a member of another society, at least as a perpetual inhabitant; and his children will be members of it also.

ITguy on March 8, 2012 at 8:39 AM

From Article II Section 1:

No person except a natural born Citizen, or a Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the Office of President; neither shall any Person be eligible to that Office who shall not have attained to the Age of thirty-five Years, and been fourteen Years a Resident within the United States.

From Vattel:

natural-born citizens, are those born in the country, of parents who are citizens

ITguy on March 8, 2012 at 8:46 AM

Subjects and serfs have their rights flow from government. The rights of free citizens flow from God – or if you’re a troll like nathor from the mere fact of your existence. The left instinctively understands this which is why they try to turn every government handout and intrusion into our lives (whether to coerce us directly or redistribute our wealth for the “benefit” of someone else) as a “right”.

Your rights are things that do not impose any sort of obligation on another citizen (you don’t have a right to “free” healthcare/birth control etc because the state must compel someone to provide it for you) or things with directly prevent the government from interfering with you (speech, exercise of religion, property rights etc).

gwelf on March 8, 2012 at 8:48 AM

Someone may wish to inform Mr. Moulitsas, and his fellow liberals who continue to state that God is not mentioned in the Constitution and repeatedly asking where the Constitution mentions God, that God is in fact mentioned.

In Article VII, it states that the Constitution is adopted “in the Year of our Lord one thousand seven hundred and Eighty seven. . . .”

God is mentioned in the Constitution.

Stephen L. Hall on March 8, 2012 at 8:57 AM

Markos “Kos” Moultisas suffers from a severe learning disability. It’s racist to criticize the disabled, or something……………

wtng2fish on March 8, 2012 at 9:02 AM

That Moultisas apparently doesn’t understand natural rights, it’s not only stupid — it’s scary.

eforhan on March 8, 2012 at 9:04 AM

Markos Moulitsas said:

Dear Cons, show me where in the Constitution is god mentioned.

I will show him, but he’ll downplay it.

But first, let me provide historical context with the Mayflower Compact:

In the name of God, Amen. We whose names are underwritten, the loyal subjects of our dread Sovereign Lord King James, by the Grace of God of Great Britain, France and Ireland, King, Defender of the Faith, etc.

Having undertaken, for the Glory of God and advancement of the Christian Faith and Honour of our King and Country, a Voyage to plant the First Colony in the Northern Parts of Virginia, do by these presents solemnly and mutually in the presence of God and one of another, Covenant and Combine ourselves together into a Civil Body Politic, for our better ordering and preservation and furtherance of the ends aforesaid; and by virtue hereof to enact, constitute and frame such just and equal Laws, Ordinances, Acts, Constitutions and Offices, from time to time, as shall be thought most meet and convenient for the general good of the Colony, unto which we promise all due submission and obedience. In witness whereof we have hereunder subscribed our names at Cape Cod, the 11th of November, in the year of the reign of our Sovereign Lord King James, of England, France and Ireland the eighteenth, and of Scotland the fifty-fourth. Anno Domini 1620.

At that time, they were required to call their King “Sovereign Lord”. King James was in his 18th year of reign over England, France and Ireland, and in his 54th year of reign over Scotland.

But “Anno Domini” is Latin for “In the Year of Our Lord”, and the document ends “Anno Domini 1620″.

Now let’s look at the Signatory section at the end of our Constitution:

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.

To whom does “our Lord” refer?

Our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ.

To what reference date does “in the Year of our Lord one thousand seven hundred and Eighty seven” refer?

The birth of Jesus Christ.

(Similar to how “and of the Independence of the United States of America the Twelfth” refers to 1787 is the twelfth year in reference to 1776 being the first year of the Independence of the United States of America.)

Our Constitution’s signatory section references both the birth of of our nation and the birth of “our Lord”.

Do you see the similarities of the signatory sections of both the Mayflower Compact and our Constitution?

Both documents honor our Lord Jesus Christ. Anno Domini. The Year of our Lord.

See also… the references to God in all 50 State Constitutions…

ITguy on March 8, 2012 at 9:09 AM

Hey Kos, at the very bottom of the Constitution ‘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…

Yes, read it Kos, the Constitution mentions The Lord.

Schwalbe Me-262 on March 8, 2012 at 9:10 AM

I present to you references to God in all 50 State Constitutions:

Alabama 1901, Preamble We the people of the State of Alabama , invoking the favor and guidance of Almighty God, do ordain and establish the following Constitution.
Alaska 1956, Preamble We, the people of Alaska, grateful to God and to those who founded our nation and pioneered thisgreat land.
Arizona 1911, Preamble We, the people of the State of Arizona, grateful to Almighty God for our liberties, do ordain this Constitution…
Arkansas 1874, Preamble We, the people of the State of Arkansas, grateful to Almighty God for the privilege of choosing our own form of government…
California 1879, Preamble We, the People of the State of California, grateful to Al mighty God for our freedom…
Colorado 1876, Preamble We, the people of Colorado, with profound reverence for the Supreme Ruler of Universe…
Connecticut 1818, Preamble The People of Connecticut, acknowledging with gratitude the good Providence of God in permitting them to enjoy.
Delaware 1897, Preamble Through Divine Goodness all men have, by nature, the rights of worshipping and serving their Creator according to the dictates of their consciences.
Florida 1885, Preamble We, the people of the State of Florida, grateful to Almighty God for our constitutional liberty, establish this Constitution…
Georgia 1777, Preamble We, the people of Georgia, relying upon protection a ndguidance of Almighty God, do ordain and establish this Constitution…
Hawaii 1959, Preamble We, the people of Hawaii, Grateful for Divine Guidance … Establish this Constitution.
Idaho 1889, Preamble We, the people of the State of Idaho, grateful to Almighty God for our freedom, to secure its blessings.
Illinois 1870, Preamble We, the people of the State of Illinois, grateful to Almighty God for the civil, political and religious liberty which He hath so long permitted us to enjoy and looking to Him for a blessing on our endeavors.
Indiana 1851, Preamble We, the People of the State of Indiana, grateful to Almighty God for the free exercise of the right to choose our form of government.
Iowa 1857, Preamble We, the People of the State of Iowa, grateful to the Supreme Being for the blessings hitherto enjoyed, and feeling our dependenc e on Him for a continuation of these blessings, establish this Constitution.
Kansas 1859, Preamble We, the people of Kansas, grateful to Almighty God for our civil and religious privileges establish this Constitution.
Kentucky 1891, Preamble. We, the people of the Commonwealth are grateful to Almighty God for the civil, political and religious liberties…
Louisiana 1921, Preamble We, the people of the State of Louisiana, grateful to Almighty God for the civil, political and religious liberties we enjoy.
Maine 1820, Preamble We the People of Maine acknowledging with grateful hearts the goodness of the Sovereign Ruler of the Universe in affording us an opportunity … And imploring His aid and direction.
Maryland 1776, Preamble We, the people of the state of Maryland, grateful to Almighty God for our civil and religious liberty…
Massachusetts 1780, Preamble We… the people of Massachusetts, acknowledging with grateful hearts, the goodness of the Great Legislator of the Universe In the course of H is Providence, an opportunity and devoutly implor ing His direction
Michigan 1908, Preamble Le. We, the people of the State of Michigan, grateful to Almighty God for the blessings of freedom establish this Constitution.
Minnesota, 1857, Preamble We, the people of the State of Minnesota, grateful to God for our civil and religious liberty, and desiring to perpetuate its blessings:
Mississippi 1890, Preamble We, the people of Mississippi in convention assembled, grateful to Almighty God, and invoking His blessing on our work.
Missouri 1845, Preamble We, the people of Missouri, with profound reverence for the Supreme Ruler of the Universe, and grateful for His goodness. Establish this Constitution…
Montana 1889, Preamble. We, the people of Montana, grateful to Almighty God for the blessings of liberty establish thisConstitution.
Nebraska 1875, Preamble We, the people, grateful to Almighty God for our freedom. Establish this Constitution.
Nevada 1864, Preamble We the people of the State of Nevada, grateful to Almighty God for our freedom, establish this Constitution…
New Hampshire 1792, Part I. Art. I. Sec. V Every individual has a natural and unalienable right to worship God according to the dictates of his own conscience.
New Jersey 1844, Preamble We, the people of the State of New Jersey, grateful to Almighty God for civil and religious liberty which He hath so long permitted us to enjoy, and looking to Him for a blessing on our endeavors.
New Mexico 1911, Preamble We, the People of New Mexico, grateful to Almighty God for the blessings of liberty.
New York 1846, Preamble We, the people of the State of New York, grateful to Almighty God for our freedom, in order to secure its blessings.
North Carolina 1868, Preamble We the people of the State of North Carolina, grateful to Almighty God, the Sovereign Ruler of Nations, for our civil, political, and religious liberties, and acknowledging our dependence upon Him for the continuance of those…
North Dakota 1889, Preamble We, the people of North Dakota, grateful to Almighty God for the blessings of civil and religious liberty, do ordain…
Ohio 1852, Preamble We the people of the state of Ohio, grateful to Almighty God for our freedom, to secure its blessings and to promote our common…
Oklahoma 1907, Preamble Invoking the guidance of Almighty God, inorder to secure and perpetuate the blessings of liberty, establish this
Oregon 1857, Bill of Rights, Article I Section 2. All men shall be secure in the Natural right, to worship Almighty God according to the dictates of their consciences
Pennsylvania 1776, Preamble We, the people of Pennsylvania, grateful to Almighty God for the blessings of civil and religious liberty, and humbly invoking His guidance…
Rhode Island 1842, Preamble. We the People of the State of Rhode Island grateful to Almighty God for the civil and religious liberty which He hath so long permitted us to enjoy, and looking to Him for a blessing…
South Carolina, 1778, Preamble We, the people of he State of South Carolina grateful to God for our liberties, do ordain and establish this Constitution.
South Dakota 1889, Preamble We, the people of South Dakota, grateful to Almighty God for our civil and religious liberties.
Tennessee 1796, Art. XI.III. That all men have a natural and indefeasible right to worship Almighty God according to the dictates of their conscience…
Texas 1845, Preamble We the People of the Republic of Texas, acknowledging, with gratitude, the grace and beneficence of God.
Utah 1896, Preamble Grateful to Almighty God for life and liberty, we establish this Constitution.
Vermont 1777, Preamble Whereas all government ought to enable the individuals who compose it to enjoy their natural rights, and other blessings which the Author of Existence has bestowed on man.
Virginia 1776, Bill of Rights, XVI Religion, or the Duty which we owe our Creator can be directed only by Reason and that it is the mutual duty of all to practice Christian Forbearance, Love and Charity towards each other
Washington 1889, Preamble We the People of the State of Washington, grateful to the Supreme Ruler of the Universe for our liberties, do ordain this Constitution
West Virginia 1872, Preamble Since through Divine Providence we enjoy the blessings of civil, political and religious liberty, we, the people of West Virginiareaffirm our faith in and constant reliance upon God .
Wisconsin 1848, Preamble We, the people of Wisconsin, grateful to Almighty God for our freedom, domestic tranquility…
Wyoming 1890, Preamble We, the people of the State of Wyoming, grateful to God for our civil, political, and religious liberties, establish this Constitution.

ITguy on March 8, 2012 at 9:12 AM

Is he ignorant or just pushing the administration’s point of view in the belief that if it’s repeated often enough it will be accepted as true.

Nomas on March 8, 2012 at 9:12 AM

Subjects and serfs have their rights flow from government. The rights of free citizens flow from God –

gwelf on March 8, 2012 at 8:48 AM

While I’m a Believer myself… I don’t think it’s necessary for citizens to accept religion in order to understand natural rights.

Natural rights are all about being a human animal. We’re human so we can speak, therefore, we have a right to. We can make our own tools and defend our homes, therefore, we have a right to, and so forth. Whether one believes that it was God or evolution that made us as we are, the point is that we’re made as we are.

Our founders were learned men. In observation and study of history, it’s pretty easy to see that any time we ignore our human nature, strife follows. If one citizen, for example, tramples the natural rights of another, the injured citizen will most often retaliate. We keep the peace by designing our system around protection of these natural rights, allowing all individuals the freedom to do as they please, just so long as in the exercise of their rights, they do not impede the like rights of another.

There’s nothing about our Constitution’s adherence to natural rights which should offend atheists. The belief in a Creator is not necessary to understanding it.

Murf76 on March 8, 2012 at 9:17 AM

Article VII dates the signing of the Constitution two ways: (1) “in the Year of our Lord one thousand seven hundred and Eighty seven” (2) “and [in the Year] of the Independence of the United States of America the Twelfth”.

Basically, the Constitution was dated both from the commonly-accepted year of Christ’s birth AND from the signing of the Declaration of Independence. 1787 was the twelfth year since 1776, when the Declaration was signed and the colonies’ Independence from Britain officially ratified.

Thus, the Constitution recognizes that the founding document of the United States of America is the Declaration of Independence, not the Constitution. The Constitution is there to lay out the organization of the United States’ government, but the nation was founded by the Declaration (which talks rather a bit about God).

Thanks for proving your ignorance yet again, Kos.

Harpazo on March 8, 2012 at 9:17 AM

Harpazo on March 8, 2012 at 9:17 AM

Correct.

And we celebrate the birth of our country on July 4th, “Independence Day”, the anniversary of the signing of the Declaration of Independence…

… and not on September 17th, “Constitution Day”, the anniversary of the signing of the Constitution.

The foundation of our nation is the Declaration of Independence.

And our Constitution honors, not contradicts, the Declaration of Independence.

ITguy on March 8, 2012 at 9:27 AM

Also, Abraham Lincoln’s Gettysburg Address references the year of the Declaration of Independence, not the year of the Constitution.

Four score and seven years ago our fathers brought forth on this continent a new nation, conceived in liberty, and dedicated to the proposition that all men are created equal.
Now we are engaged in a great civil war, testing whether that nation, or any nation, so conceived and so dedicated, can long endure. We are met on a great battle-field of that war. We have come to dedicate a portion of that field, as a final resting place for those who here gave their lives that that nation might live. It is altogether fitting and proper that we should do this.

But, in a larger sense, we can not dedicate, we can not consecrate, we can not hallow this ground. The brave men, living and dead, who struggled here, have consecrated it, far above our poor power to add or detract. The world will little note, nor long remember what we say here, but it can never forget what they did here. It is for us the living, rather, to be dedicated here to the unfinished work which they who fought here have thus far so nobly advanced. It is rather for us to be here dedicated to the great task remaining before us—that from these honored dead we take increased devotion to that cause for which they gave the last full measure of devotion—that we here highly resolve that these dead shall not have died in vain—that this nation, under God, shall have a new birth of freedom—and that government of the people, by the people, for the people, shall not perish from the earth.

score = 20

“Four score and seven” = (4 * 20) + 7 = 87

“Four score and seven years ago” = 87 years ago.

The Gettysburg Address was delivered November 19, 1863.

1863 – 87 years = 1776.

Four score and seven years ago [in 1776] our fathers brought forth on this continent a new nation, conceived in liberty, and dedicated to the proposition that all men are created equal…
… we here highly resolve that these dead shall not have died in vain—that this nation, under God, shall have a new birth of freedom—and that government of the people, by the people, for the people, shall not perish from the earth.

ITguy on March 8, 2012 at 9:33 AM

From the Constitution Signatory page:
“Seventeenth Day of September in the Year of our LORD one thousand seven hundred and Eighty seven”…giggle

NHElle on March 8, 2012 at 9:50 AM

although this is obvious from the opening of the Declaration of Independence:

The Declaration of Independence isn’t law, and its not our constitution. It’s a document stating we are declaring independence from the king. Otherwise, it has no relevant effect on politics or law.

triple on March 8, 2012 at 9:57 AM

Summation from a lawyer:

But, an early question arose in constitutional law as to whether this Declaration was part of the Constitution itself, an ancillary document that should be used to shed light on the meaning of the Constitution, or just a nice set of words that operated as a large middle finger to George III.

The Supreme Court has generally held that the Declaration does not have the force of law, and no words in the Declaration can give rise to legal rights independently. One major justification for this view is that the Declaration’s purpose was to separate the United States from Britain, not to prescribe legal rights for the people living in the colonies.

However, the Declaration has been used in aiding the Court to interpret other laws. For example, in early constitutional law, the Court held that the Constitution was the supreme law of the land as the highest expression of intent of the people. The Court relied on the Declaration’s language about the rights of the “people,” as compared with the rights of the states. Another example, in an 1830 case, the Court, interpreting a wills and estates question of New York law, held that a child born in New York before July 4, 1776, and whose parents moved him to Britain, was not a citizen of the United States. That is, the Court determined that July 4, 1776 was the date on which the sovereignty of Great Britain ceased.

Beyond these examples, and a handful of others, courts are generally hesitant to apply the Declaration as substantive law. This is true of both those justices considered conservative and liberal, such as current Justices Scalia and Breyer.

http://legallad.quickanddirtytips.com/declaration-of-independence.aspx

triple on March 8, 2012 at 10:04 AM

There’s something to be learned by both sides on this issue.

To Kos and those on the left in general: The vast majority of Americans do believe in God. That’s just a natural fact. So people will be proclaiming the good news about Jesus or Allah or “I AM” all over the place. And as long as they’re not drugging you or kidnapping you or otherwise forcing you to conform to their beliefs, you have the right to ignore their proselytizing and go about your civil life and liberty.

To those social conservatives who are secretly wishing for a theocracy: The First Amendment does say Congress has no right to prohibit the free exercise of religion. I have no qualms about that. And I saw this passage in quite a few state constitutions:

That all men have a natural and indefeasible right to worship Almighty God according to the dictates of their conscience…

That means there will be some churches and believers out there that may believe in things that your own religion might forbid. There ARE Christian denominations that support homosexuality, and a couple are even happy to perform same-sex weddings. There are some religions that don’t forbid the use of some illegal drugs, and even a few that make them part of their worship guidelines. As long as no one is harmed or no one’s liberty is curtailed (that means you, Sharia), these religions have every right to be practiced in America, and we shouldn’t have any religion’s petty little rules be imposed on us by law.

TMOverbeck on March 8, 2012 at 10:07 AM

And as for those who doubt Kos, if you think the government doesn’t create rights, try moving to china.

It’s true that the government does not create rights, but it is also true that a government may choose to allow you to exercise those rights or not, in which case – what’s the difference.

triple on March 8, 2012 at 10:08 AM

The Declaration of Independence isn’t law, and its not our constitution. It’s a document stating we are declaring independence from the king.

Not only stating it, though, but explaining the rationale for that declaration and our right to make it.

Otherwise, it has no relevant effect on politics or law.

triple on March 8, 2012 at 9:57 AM

But the question here is where our rights come from — and the declaration most certainly speaks to that, far more directly than the constitution.

As for “no relevant effect on politics” — I have no idea what you mean here. The whole purpose of the declaration was to guide perceptions of why we should be an independent nation, with the assertion of our inalienable rights being superior to any specific governmental structure, being central to that rationale.

Chuckles3 on March 8, 2012 at 10:09 AM

It’s true that the government does not create rights

Good, we agree Kos was full of it.

but it is also true that a government may choose to allow you to exercise those rights or not, in which case – what’s the difference.

triple on March 8, 2012 at 10:08 AM

If Kos had said that, no one would be criticizing him now.

Odd to defend Kos by taking the position he didn’t — that government doesn’t create rights but can only interfere with their being exercised. This is precisely the position that Kos was attacking, not embracing.

Chuckles3 on March 8, 2012 at 10:12 AM

wow, you really collected all my posts?!? indeed only blink gave an an somewhat rational answer to an impossible question. my point was more to demonstrate how silly this discussion is while injecting atheist snark. worked wonderfully.

We do not want our rights to be at the whim of the GOVERNMENT.

vote libertarian…

That is the whole point nathor.
I guess I’m still not sure if you are:
A. Really that stupid

for making questions?

B. Just being obtuse bcs it gets you off
OR

my point was more to demonstrate how silly this discussion is.

C. A paid Troll

there is such thing?

PErhaps I’ll go with Choice D: ALL of the the above

I will say, you are certainly starving for attention.
Poor thing.

all posters in this blog like attention being given to their words. even you. I am no diferent.

I had a day in my Ecology class yesterday where I had an absent student & I was ahead anyway. So we took the whole period to discuss the Constitution etc.
They loved it.

do your students copy their homework from wikipedia?

And one of the girl’s mother is our History teacher.
And she didn’t know SQUAT.

Badger40 on March 8, 2012 at 8:39 AM

so what?

nathor on March 8, 2012 at 10:28 AM

Subjects and serfs have their rights flow from government. The rights of free citizens flow from God – or if you’re a troll like nathor from the mere fact of your existence.

our rights are granted by WE THE PEOPLE! when, WE THE PEOPLE, decided to draft a document explaining our rights and liberties, then we ALL PLEDGE TO UPHOLD IT and pledge to DEFEND IT.
our rights and liberties flow from the constitution that we all support and defend.
no god is necessary when a group of men makes a social agreement between themselves.

The left instinctively understands this which is why they try to turn every government handout and intrusion into our lives (whether to coerce us directly or redistribute our wealth for the “benefit” of someone else) as a “right”.

Your rights are things that do not impose any sort of obligation on another citizen (you don’t have a right to “free” healthcare/birth control etc because the state must compel someone to provide it for you) or things with directly prevent the government from interfering with you (speech, exercise of religion, property rights etc).

gwelf on March 8, 2012 at 8:48 AM

this is a whole different argument. I focus just on “where our rights come from” part. to claim they are from god, is like discussing angels sex. its a meaningless discussion.

nathor on March 8, 2012 at 10:40 AM

Kos, as usual, is completely wrong. But he is right about one thing which is that this is exactly what leftists believe. To them, we are all property and creations of the State. Therefore, we have no rights or own any property except what the State graces us with. This is why the left so willingly disrespects private property (OWS protests) or wonder why people object to the government raiding bank accounts of the rich to rob as much money as they wish. To them, the State owns all.

To paraphrase Charlton Heston, “The 2nd Amendment does not grant to right to bear arms. It acknowledges that this right already exists and the government must protect and respect that right.”

Crusty on March 8, 2012 at 10:47 AM

our rights and liberties flow from the constitution that we all support and defend.
no god is necessary when a group of men makes a social agreement between themselves

.

No. The foundation of our system of government is that rights such as life liberty and property predate government. The Constitution does not establish them, it merely recognizes their existence and explicitly states that it does not express a comprehensive listing of such rights.

The “consent of the governed” is the source of the government’s power, not the source of our rights.

vermin on March 8, 2012 at 10:56 AM

The reason I love freedom of expression is that I can know without doubt how lame and arrogant some people are.

In other cultures, people hide their nastiness to avoid confrontation, and in some instances legal problems, despite government disclaimers to the contrary. Look to European speech code for an example. What you have is institutionalized hypocrisy.

Here you get to see Kos and others at full snort just as they are. Knowing that we can do the necessary more easily. In the US, you don’t get beaten, generally, but discover that you are alone.

Denver Bob on March 8, 2012 at 10:59 AM

It’s not meaningless to educate someone on the fact that rights don’t come from government – which is exactly the point of this thread given Kos’ twitter messages.

However, your participation in this discussion is meaningless.

blink on March 8, 2012 at 10:46 AM

so, your kerkufle is with this? if kos said, our rights derive from the constitution, you would be ok?
its all semantics. later KOS talks about the constitution, like in his mind, the constitution and the goverment are one and the same. they are related, for sure, because the constitution explains the rules of our goverment and is the goverment that is supposed to oversee that the liberties granted by the constitution are respected.
anyway, it seems petty argument to have…

It’s not meaningless to educate someone on the fact that rights don’t come from government – which is exactly the point of this thread given Kos’ twitter messages.
blink on March 8, 2012 at 10:46 AM

ok, for me, our rights, come from the constitution that was made from WE THE PEOPLE. they dont come god.

nathor on March 8, 2012 at 11:16 AM

our rights and liberties flow from the constitution that we all support and defend.
no god is necessary when a group of men makes a social agreement between themselves

No. The foundation of our system of government is that rights such as life liberty and property predate government. The Constitution does not establish them, it merely recognizes their existence and explicitly states that it does not express a comprehensive listing of such rights.

life liberty and property and very broad words that need to be clarified by the constitution and our jurisprudence.
“life and liberty”, as rights, can still be given by a group of men, pledging to grant them to each member of that group of men. And in practice, that was what happened!

The “consent of the governed” is the source of the government’s power, not the source of our rights.

vermin on March 8, 2012 at 10:56 AM

I agree, no argument here!

nathor on March 8, 2012 at 11:25 AM

Facts have never mattered to Kos. You’re wasting your breath.

goflyers on March 8, 2012 at 11:30 AM

ok, for me, our rights, come from the constitution that was made from WE THE PEOPLE. they dont come god.

nathor on March 8, 2012 at 11:16 AM

And in this you would be wrong. Because the Consitution was made by man, so if the Constitution bestows these rights, then they are man-made. Further, if man gives you rights, man can take them way.

In any case, these unalienable rights are not spelled out in the Constitution, but rather in that other document, the Declaration of Independence:

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,

You see, the powers of Government derive from the consent of the governed, but the rights are transcendent and come from the Creator. And that Creator is God.

AJsDaddie on March 8, 2012 at 11:30 AM

Of course not. Our rights don’t derive from the Constitution. Our rights were given to us by God, any god, nature, the universe, etc. The Constitution is merely an acknowledgement that government can’t take certain rights away from us.
blink on March 8, 2012 at 11:30 AM

ok, again, we are back to discussing angels sex. if “God, any god, nature, the universe, etc.” cannot express itself, in concrete, what these rights are, then it falls into men to express them and compile them into the constitution.

so, if in the end it were men writing these rights, we can only speculate if “God, any god, nature, the universe, etc.” was inspiring these men or not. we will never know, what was in those men true heart, so, senseless discussion.

nathor on March 8, 2012 at 11:45 AM

And in practice, that was what happened!

You’re conflating the issue of the source of rights with the matter of what was done to protect such rights.

vermin on March 8, 2012 at 11:48 AM

“life and liberty”, as rights, can still be given by a group of men,

nathor on March 8, 2012 at 11:25 AM

Maybe you need to learn the difference between the words “given” and “acknowledged”.

blink on March 8, 2012 at 11:31 AM

“life and liberty”, as rights, can still be acknowledge by a group of men.

I am ok with this, but, acknowledgement is not the only thing. rights have to be uphold. who is responsible for upholding them? god?

nathor on March 8, 2012 at 11:49 AM

And in this you would be wrong. Because the Consitution was made by man, so if the Constitution bestows these rights, then they are man-made. Further, if man gives you rights, man can take them way.

In any case, these unalienable rights are not spelled out in the Constitution, but rather in that other document, the Declaration of Independence:

the “unalienable rights” spelled in the Declaration of Independence, where still written by men. thus, I can claim also they are men maid and as you said: “if man gives you rights, man can take them way.”

nothing stops another group of men, to claim a different set of rights, and say they are from god, or creator or whatever. and nothing stops, you, from pledging to one or the other.

so, the reference of god here, is completely unimportant but i understand why you, as a believer, feel so attached to it.

the fact is, in practice, being god considered or not the source of our rights, is irrelevant, due the absent nature of god.what matters is that those rights need to be written(by men) and pledged upon by us all.

nathor on March 8, 2012 at 12:01 PM

the fact is, in practice, being god considered or not the source of our rights, is irrelevant, due the absent nature of god.what matters is that those rights need to be written(by men) and pledged upon by us all.

nathor on March 8, 2012 at 12:01 PM

The concept of a Creator is the DEFINING ATTRIBUTE of our entire country! We tolerate atheism but our society is based on God. Feel free to go through the writings of all the Founding Fathers and you’ll see example after example.

There is no America without God.

AJsDaddie on March 8, 2012 at 12:14 PM

nathor on March 7, 2012 at 7:46 PM

You’re still in high school, aren’t you? Public high school.

Solaratov on March 8, 2012 at 12:41 PM

This is correct. Nothing stops me from claiming that I have the right to imprison you on my island country simply because I wanted to.

Now, would I be wrong? Would I have the right to imprison you simply because I wanted to?

blink on March 8, 2012 at 12:34 PM

you would be wrong in my subjective opinion of what is right and wrong. but, if your god granted you that right, maybe it would be right to you.

nathor on March 8, 2012 at 12:47 PM

Little gay boy doesn’t care about or know the constitution. And we don’t care about little gay boy.

rjulio on March 8, 2012 at 12:47 PM

nathor, just when I said, That boy ain’t very smart is he? Right on cue, you show up, do you really miss the point? Or are you just trying to be a contrarian.

Bmore on March 7, 2012 at 8:06 PM

Poor little nathor would love to be a contrarian (if he knew what that is), but he’s not only missed the point – he’s too ignorant to see it.
And just think: someday, nathor will be old enough to vote.

Solaratov on March 8, 2012 at 12:50 PM

Essentially, this is James Madison v. Kos.
That is, genius v. pond scum.
Ok … vociferous pond scum, yet green goo nonetheless.

Shambhala on March 8, 2012 at 12:50 PM

I KNOW that I have human rights even if there are no men in the world that write them and pledge to uphold them.

The existence of my human rights are completely INDEPENDENT of any man’s writings.

Why is this so difficult for you to understand?

blink on March 8, 2012 at 12:40 PM

whatever. have it your way. but please understand that for an atheist, although I believe in the same rights, it only matters that we agree upon them. their ultimate nature is, irrelevant and probably unknowable.

nathor on March 8, 2012 at 12:52 PM

my satire revealed the sillyness of this whole “who gave us our rights?” dilema and now you label me as a troll?

nathor on March 7, 2012 at 8:21 PM

You don’t have much of a working knowledge of English. Why don’t you pay a bit more attention in your remedial English class from now on? It’d do you a world of good – and people might laugh at you a bit less.

Solaratov on March 8, 2012 at 12:54 PM

Little gay boy doesn’t care about or know the constitution. And we don’t care about little gay boy.
rjulio on March 8, 2012 at 12:47 PM

I’m sorry, but calling someone ‘gay’ as an insult is unkind to gay Republicans/right wingers. I’m sure you can come up with another unkind, yet more adequate way of describing him.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GU5UGC4Gh_U

Shambhala on March 8, 2012 at 12:56 PM

Stop being stupid about this. You’re allowing yourself to lose the argument merely for the sake of being able to claim that no creator bestowed any rights.

you guys are insufferable… what meaning would have to me, an atheist, to say that god gave me rights?

Kos was wrong regardless of how human rights are bestowed.

only believers get upset with this. lets assume its god. what it matters?

Imaging Kos saying that it’s illegal to jaywalk in Bobbytown, and I stated that the lawmakers in Bobbytown specifically made jaywalking legal because they thought God wanted it to be legal.

Now, Kos can be wrong even if the lawmakers in Bobbytown were wrong to believe in God. Kos can be wrong even if you think that the right to jaywalk has nothing to do with any creator. Basically, Kos can be wrong regardless of the reasons for the language in Bobbytown laws.

sorry, you will have to rewrite this, I read it a couple of times and still dont get this last paragraph.

blink on March 8, 2012 at 12:38 PM

nathor on March 8, 2012 at 1:01 PM

No, this isn’t true. It’s important that we also agree that it’s not government that bestows these rights. It’s important that we agree that we are born with these rights.

blink on March 8, 2012 at 1:00 PM

sure, ok! we can claim whatever we want.*nathor claims loud: I was born with the right of life and liberty*. but, what is really important is who going to uphold these rights! who is it?

nathor on March 8, 2012 at 1:05 PM

Kos was wrong regardless of how human rights are bestowed.

only believers get upset with this. lets assume its god. what it matters?

What is wrong is to think that man bestows rights, rather than a higher power. That’s one of the problems with being an atheist; many atheists believe THEY are the highest power in the Universe. And once you start believing that, it’s but a brief step to The Great Nathor, Benevolent Dictator for Life.

AJsDaddie on March 8, 2012 at 1:07 PM

I’ll state that what’s not important is the reason that we both believe that we are born with these rights.

fine.

And surely that you realize that Kos is wrong regardless of the reason that we are born with these rights.

blink on March 8, 2012 at 1:02 PM

whatever.

nathor on March 8, 2012 at 1:10 PM

This sentence is barely intelligible.

Stop pretending that anyone is asking you to say this.

You are merely being asked to agree that government ISN’T the bestower of our rights.

i grant you that KOS is not accurate in the first tweet.

No, stupid. An atheist who believes that they are born with inherent rights should also be upset with Kos’ statement.

ok, I can only be somewhat upset with the first tweet.

It’s funny that you so desperately want this to be a debate about god. Gee, I’m so sorry that your insistence about this simply makes you look like an idiot.

blink on March 8, 2012 at 1:06 PM

can you please read all the references of god in the blog entry?its all about god! kos claims the constituion, not god gives us rights, and all hell breaks loose with the believers.
I not an idiot for staying on topic! pfff
m

nathor on March 8, 2012 at 1:20 PM

It’s not a matter of simply making the claim. It’s a matter that we deeply believe that government can’t take our rights away….because….wait for it…. we were born with them.

without snark, my mental wiring does not let me take leaps of faith that easily. even if I am born with these rights, I end up doubting them. as such, my deep belief only comes from reasoning how these right are indeed very important. although I dont believe in god inspired reasoning, maybe you can speculate that indeed god inspired me in my deep belief in these rights that I share with you.
can this be a common ground?

but, what is really important is who going to uphold these rights! who is it?

Wrong. First, it’s primarily important that we HAVE our rights articulated properly. Having our rights enforced is secondary. If the enforcers think we don’t have any rights, then the rights we are born with are useless.

blink on March 8, 2012 at 1:10 PM

fine, its more important to articulate the rights, but its also important to uphold them. so, who upholds them?

nathor on March 8, 2012 at 1:33 PM

Comment pages: 1 2 3