But it does speak to the foundation of this government, and the use of government to ensure some level of morality in society. It is not law, however the supreme court has noted that document in cases.
Part of this I guess is based on my belief that there is order to the universe, that there is something, I don't know what, greater than us. And that something has created rules that are different from those of the animals. That the human condition wants more than blind instinct or simple gratification. We think it is right so it must be right doesn't seem plausible in the grand scheme of things. Our government was founded on the idea that there is a universal truth, and that we don't know what it is, we are capable to adopt our human laws to what we feel and learn. But in the end, there is one answer, one set. And that is the answer to the meaning of life. > -----Original Message----- > From: S. Isaac Dealey [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > > It is invalid as proof of a universal yardstick for the > right/wrong-ness of human behavior. I said "faith / religion" to be > inclusive of the possiblity that you might not adhere to a specific > religion, but the fact that you believe in "something that created > things and put them in motioni" and "something that sets humans apart > from every other living thing" indicates that you do have a personal > faith. > > As to the declaration of independance, it's not my declaration. :) It > was the declaration of the representatives of the first 13 states > explaining their agreed upon reasons for seceding Brittish rule, and I > will personally allow some of it's suppositions to be incorrect. :) > While it does speak of God and of inalienable rights at the same time, > there are no laws drafted in it, and if there were and I felt those > laws to be flawed in some way, then I would speak against what I > believe to be their flaws. If I were alive at the time, I don't think > even being an atheist (for the sake of argument) that I would have > objected to the drafters using God in that document, just like I don't > lambast Christians for praying that I'll come back to the fold. It's > silly but I can allow them to be silly. I probably would have > lambasted them for invoking God while drafting laws. > > Governments are created by men. So are morals. I think the US is the > first example of those two things being combined isn't it? Anybody > else on the list want to chime in here? I believe all previous > governments came into being through force without ever declaring their > sovereignty. The US drafted its declaration as I understand it because > Brittish Parliament had demanded it. The fact that they claimed that a > government exists to secure rights which are provided by God doesn't > make it so, nor does it change the fact that governments are created > by men or that they created a government. They invoked God while > declaring their moral reasons for secession -- it doesn't make those > morals any more divine. > > Just for clarification: > > I'm not an atheist. > I am Unitarian. > Some Unitarians are atheists. ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~| Message: http://www.houseoffusion.com/lists.cfm/link=i:5:200082 Archives: http://www.houseoffusion.com/cf_lists/threads.cfm/5 Subscription: http://www.houseoffusion.com/lists.cfm/link=s:5 Unsubscribe: http://www.houseoffusion.com/cf_lists/unsubscribe.cfm?user=11502.10531.5 Donations & Support: http://www.houseoffusion.com/tiny.cfm/54
