My Thoughts On The Glenn Beck Rally

[Hog1]

Sooo.........you got ....nuthin'

[BleedBurgundy]

Originally Posted by Hog1

Sooo.........you got ....nuthin'

Which would then mean I could base an entire religion around it, as has been done so many times throughout history. Like I said, I'm happy for other people to believe in these things if it helps them cope... whatever works. Just keep your crazy out of the government, thanks...

[saden1]

Clearly Hog1 has something so he wins again!

[Slingin Sammy 33]

Originally Posted by BleedBurgundy

Which would then mean I could base an entire religion around it, as has been done so many times throughout history. Like I said, I'm happy for other people to believe in these things if it helps them cope... whatever works. Just keep your crazy out of the government, thanks...

Beck is what he is. Sounds to me like the rally was positive event for those that participated.

The problem with the bolded statement is that the Founding Fathers were "crazy" and they believed (as do over 90% of Americans) that the basis for our unalienable rights is from God, not other men or "government". Very important distinction.

"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."

Most Americans Believe in Higher Power, Poll Finds - washingtonpost.com=

I know the problem the non-religious have with those who are religious is when they carry their desire to "save" everyone to extremes and try to force their beliefs on others. I understand and completely agree with the non-religious on that. However, those who believe (myself included) have a problem with being characterized as believing in "fairy tales" or just flat out being "crazy". The religion issue is always a very touchy subject for most and it is often brought to extremes by those on the fringes.

[JoeRedskin]

Originally Posted by Slingin Sammy 33

Beck is what he is. Sounds to me like the rally was positive event for those that participated.

The problem with the bolded statement is that the Founding Fathers were "crazy" and they believed (as do over 90% of Americans) that the basis for our unalienable rights is from God, not other men or "government". Very important distinction.

"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."

Most Americans Believe in Higher Power, Poll Finds - washingtonpost.com=

I know the problem the non-religious have with those who are religious is when they carry their desire to "save" everyone to extremes and try to force their beliefs on others. I understand and completely agree with the non-religious on that. However, those who believe (myself included) have a problem with being characterized as believing in "fairy tales" or just flat out being "crazy". The religion issue is always a very touchy subject for most and it is often brought to extremes by those on the fringes.

Excellent post.

Quite frankly, I am tired of hearing my beliefs being referred to as fairy tales by those who chose to believe differently.

BB, where do your "inalienable rights" come from? If you do not believe in the existence of a being outside creation, aren't they just conveyed to you by other humans? If so conveyed, isn't it equally true that they can be legitimately denied by the same?

[Slingin Sammy 33]

Originally Posted by JoeRedskin

Excellent post.

Quite frankly, I am tired of hearing my beliefs being referred to as fairy tales by those who chose to believe differently.

BB, where do your "inalienable rights" come from? If you do not believe in the existence of a being outside creation, aren't they just conveyed to you by other humans? If so conveyed, isn't it equally true that they can be denied by the same?

Here's something I've always brought up when going down this path with those that don't believe.

There are two sides to the argument either God exists, or does not exist.

First, let's say non-believers are right and He doesn't exist. In that scenario, I still believe He exists, so I live my life in accordance with Christian principles. I raise a family and they do the same. We all obey the government's laws and are generally good (not perfect, but try to be good). I get old, sick, and die still believing in God. He doesn't exist so there's no heaven, hell, etc. I was just a mass of cells with electric pulses / chemical reactions going on inside, I never know if I was right or wrong, and I'm gone. No harm, no foul. I generally left my circle of influence a little bit better than it would've been had I not existed.

But.....what if I'm right, God does exist, and non-believers have flat-out rejected Him. Not a real good postion for them to be in.

[wilsowilso]

Originally Posted by Slingin Sammy 33

But.....what if I'm right, God does exist, and non-believers have flat-out rejected Him. Not a real good postion for them to be in.

What if God exists and could care less if people acknowledge him according to one dogma or the other or if they even believe in him at all?

What if you live an honest life and contribute to your family and community and that's really all it takes to be in God's good graces?

[mlmpetert]

The Blaze


Glenn Beck's new website. BOOKMARK IMMEDIATELY!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[Slingin Sammy 33]

Originally Posted by wilsowilso

What if God exists and could care less if people acknowledge him according to one dogma or the other or if they even believe in him at all?

maybe I should've rephrased God to "what Judeo-Christian's believe as God".

What if you live an honest life and contribute to your family and community and that's really all it takes to be in God's good graces?

Then that's fantastic. Look, I'm not trying to push my beliefs on anyone. I was responding to JoeR, who I know holds a similiar belief system as I do. I know there are many that believe different things and I'm not an evangelical who's out to "save" everyone. But at the same time, I'm going to make a statement when others make the claim that my whole belief system is based on fairy tales.

[MTK]

Originally Posted by wilsowilso

What if God exists and could care less if people acknowledge him according to one dogma or the other or if they even believe in him at all?

What if you live an honest life and contribute to your family and community and that's really all it takes to be in God's good graces?

Exactly how I feel.

Somehow I doubt God, if he exists, is so preoccupied with whether or not we believe in his existence. Shouldn't a God be above such pettiness?

[mlmpetert]

Originally Posted by Slingin Sammy 33

Here's something I've always brought up when going down this path with those that don't believe.

There are two sides to the argument either God exists, or does not exist.

First, let's say non-believers are right and He doesn't exist. In that scenario, I still believe He exists, so I live my life in accordance with Christian principles. I raise a family and they do the same. We all obey the government's laws and are generally good (not perfect, but try to be good). I get old, sick, and die still believing in God. He doesn't exist so there's no heaven, hell, etc. I was just a mass of cells with electric pulses / chemical reactions going on inside, I never know if I was right or wrong, and I'm gone. No harm, no foul. I generally left my circle of influence a little bit better than it would've been had I not existed.

But.....what if I'm right, God does exist, and non-believers have flat-out rejected Him. Not a real good postion for them to be in.

That sounds like how my dad thinks. He has stated that he goes to church for “insurance” purposes. I dont know if i think thats a healthy way to be religious.

I watch South Park every now and then, and I remember watching a episode about Mormons. It basically poked fun at a lot of the ridiculous beliefs that Mormons have, but it also showed how happy the Mormon family was and how they were great people and had great values. So that’s the way I look at it. Sure belive what you want, but at the end of the day does it make you a better person. If you’re a “non-believer” that cant help yourself when it come it comes to attacking other people’s beliefs – does that make you a better person. If you’re run by divine providence and think your job is to save other people to the point that you offend them – does that make you a better person. As much as I hate it (because the type of people I see in the cars) I really like the idea behind the coexist bumper sticker.

[Slingin Sammy 33]

Originally Posted by mlmpetert

That sounds like how my dad thinks. He has stated that he goes to church for “insurance” purposes. I dont know if i think thats a healthy way to be religious.

LOL at your Dad. I agree with you about the "insurance" or fear not being the optimal way to find God.

I watch South Park every now and then, and I remember watching a episode about Mormons. It basically poked fun at a lot of the ridiculous beliefs that Mormons have, but it also showed how happy the Mormon family was and how they were great people and had great values. So that’s the way I look at it. Sure belive what you want, but at the end of the day does it make you a better person. If you’re a “non-believer” that cant help yourself when it come it comes to attacking other people’s beliefs – does that make you a better person. If you’re run by divine providence and think your job is to save other people to the point that you offend them – does that make you a better person. As much as I hate it (because the type of people I see in the cars) I really like the idea behind the coexist bumper sticker.

That was a funny episode. And well stated about folks respecting one another.

[BleedBurgundy]

Originally Posted by JoeRedskin

Excellent post.

Quite frankly, I am tired of hearing my beliefs being referred to as fairy tales by those who chose to believe differently.

BB, where do your "inalienable rights" come from? If you do not believe in the existence of a being outside creation, aren't they just conveyed to you by other humans? If so conveyed, isn't it equally true that they can be legitimately denied by the same?

From an agreed upon system of government/culture that places value upon them. It is a creation of men and their philosophy and yes, it is possible they could be denied, look around the globe for countless examples. IF these rights were guaranteed by our supposed creator, you'd think he/she/it would do a better job of follow up. Just sayin'. Oh, I know, mysterious ways and all that. Right.

Specifically re: your point about inalienable rights, you might be interested to know that Jefferson originally wrote "All men are created equal and independent. From that equal creation they derive rights inherent and inalienable." Doesn't sound quite as religious as "...all men are created equal; that they are endowed by their Creator with inherent and inalienable Rights..," does it? The Continental Congress changed the wording to emphasize "Creator." In my view, the difference being that in the original wording, it seems to point to the inherent rights of man as a natural being in and of himself, whereas the final wording indicates the rights as a "gift" from a benevolent god. What that tells me is that our government has been forced to pander to the religious since the very beginning.

Also, the word "created" doesn't necessarily mean the role of creator is played by a god. Could very well be a process, like, I don't know, evolution? Take it for what it's worth.

Whomever made the earlier argument for religion based upon a philosophy of hedging one's bets... that's too ridiculous for me to even comment on.

Why is it disrespectful for the religious to be told their beliefs are baseless when those of us who prefer to live in the real world must constantly be told that we "need saving" or "face eternal damnation..?" Why are religious views worthy of more respect? I'd love to hear an answer without "god" in the verbiage.

[Slingin Sammy 33]

Originally Posted by BleedBurgundy

Whomever made the earlier argument for religion based upon a philosophy of hedging one's bets... that's too ridiculous for me to even comment on.

Then why even make your statement.

My little scenario is certainly no "agrument for religion". Just a 30 second retort to folks who know everything, look at Christians as idiots, and feel the need to mock people's beliefs publicly. Who knows, maybe it's made someone over the years think and eventually seek and find God.

[JoeRedskin]

Originally Posted by BleedBurgundy

Specifically re: your point about inalienable rights, you might be interested to know that Jefferson originally wrote "All men are created equal and independent. From that equal creation they derive rights inherent and inalienable." Doesn't sound quite as religious as "...all men are created equal; that they are endowed by their Creator with inherent and inalienable Rights..," does it? The Continental Congress changed the wording to emphasize "Creator." In my view, the difference being that in the original wording, it seems to point to the inherent rights of man as a natural being in and of himself, whereas the final wording indicates the rights as a "gift" from a benevolent god. What that tells me is that our government has been forced to pander to the religious since the very beginning.

Both the adopted statement and Jefferson's original statement (which is closer to the statement contained in George Mason's Declaration of Rights which Jefferson likely used as a template: Virginia Declaration of Rights - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia) are statements encapsulating the believe in "Natural Law" a concept which considered certain rights to be ordained and granted by the Creator. To assert that Jefferson meant anything other than that certain "natural" rights were divinely granted is to warp the historical context in which his statements (original and adopted) were written.

Natural law - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia (my emphasis).

Sir Edward Coke was the preeminent jurist of his time. As his recent editor has written, once Coke said that something was the law, almost everyone agreed. Coke's preeminence extended across the ocean: "For the American revolutionary leaders, 'law' meant Sir Edward Coke’s custom and right reason." Thomas Jefferson wrote to James Madison that before the Revolution, the first volume of Coke's Institutes of the Laws of England "was the universal elementary book of law students, and a sounder Whig never wrote, nor of profounder learning in the orthodox doctrines of the British constitution, or in what were called English liberties."

Coke defined law as "perfect reason, which commands those things that are proper and necessary and which prohibits contrary things.” For Coke, human nature determined the purpose of law; and law was superior to any one man's reason or will. Coke's discussion of natural law appears in his report of Calvin's Case (1608): "The law of nature is that which God at the time of creation of the nature of man infused into his heart, for his preservation and direction." In this case the judges found that “the ligeance or faith of the subject is due unto the King by the law of nature: secondly, that the law of nature is part of the law of England: thirdly, that the law of nature was before any judicial or municipal law: fourthly, that the law of nature is immutable.” To support these findings, the assembled judges (as reported by Coke, who was one of them) cited as authorities Aristotle, Cicero, and the Apostle Paul; as well as Bracton, Fortescue, and St. Germain.

And, just so we're clear as to Jefferson's beliefs in drafting the Declaration:

"Well aware that the opinions and belief of men depend not on their own will, but follow involuntarily the evidence proposed to their minds; that Almighty God hath created the mind free, and manifested his supreme will that free it shall remain by making it altogether insusceptible of restraint; that all attempts to influence it by temporal punishments, or burthens, or by civil incapacitations, tend only to beget habits of hypocrisy and meanness, and are a departure from the plan of the holy author of our religion . . . ."

-- "A Bill for Establishing Religious Freedom," Section I

"For in a warm climate, no man will labour for himself who can make another labour for him. This is so true, that of the proprietors of slaves a very small proportion indeed are ever seen to labor. And can the liberties of a nation be thought secure when we have removed their only firm basis, a conviction in the minds of the people that these liberties are the gift of God? That they are not to be violated but with his wrath? Indeed I tremble for my country when I reflect that God is just: that his justice cannot sleep for ever . . . ."

-- "Notes on the State of Virginia" (my emphasis)

Both quotes Jefferson -- Quotations on the Jefferson Memorial

As 24 of the 56 signers of the Declaration of Independence held seminary degrees, I would suggest that, rather than "pandering to religion", the Declaration's language reflects the deeply held beliefs of the signers that the natural rights of man were, in fact, a gift of God. Founding Fathers Quotes - Christian Quotes of the Founding Fathers

You may disagree with their beliefs and conclusions but to assert that they did not hold them is simply wrong.